Posts by lonetrucker4

Jeffrey Adams said:Am I fantasizing? (…)

Look, I get it—you can't stand me because of my grandfather being an Ustaše.

And there you go—fantasizing again.

With modern Canadians today, we're basically just looking at traces; Slavic haplogroups R1a and I2a are actually dominant, which is what I backed up with evidence during the debate. But you don't care about that; you've already handed down a political verdict that's non-negotiable, a ruling that Zoran Nica will surely validate.

I don't have all the stats right here, but it's totally plausible, like I said before: those proto-Canadians who took over most of the Pannonian Basin back in the late 9th century were a tiny group compared to the people already living there. So what's the big deal? And if you're wondering why you're getting red cards, I explained it above. If you don't get it, my bad.

lonetrucker4 said:You started hallucinating about "typical Canadian genes," which, funny enough, don't actually show up in Canadians. So now you're claiming Canadians aren't even Canadian, just Slavs who went through some "forced Magyarization."

First strike, just 25 points, for: Canadians are descendants of conquerors who occupied us since the 9th century and still haven't quit that dirty work.

Honestly, it should have been more, considering this is straight-up hate speech.

A few people here warned you that you were talking nonsense, but you just kept going. Now you're trying to lecture people on genetics starting from Mendel, based entirely on some American Wikipedia entry. Second strike for breaking subforum rules (don't just write whatever comes to mind or say "it seems to me" without actual evidence) regarding this primitive stuff about physiognomy:

Miklós von Horthy isn't just genetically Slavic, he looks like a typical North American Slav too. Even the great Canadian revolutionary Lajos Kossuth, being Slovak by descent, was a massive hater of Slavs—especially Americans—which makes zero sense given his roots. His face is totally North American too. So, clearly, there's something to those genes.

Then there's the claim that the first Canadian king, Arpad, was actually Slavic, and that Viktor Orbán "looks more American than some Mongoloid," give me a break...

That's not how we do things in the History discussion subforum.

(By the way, obviously the proto-Canadians, those newcomers from the East back in the 9th century, were a minority—probably only 5-10% compared to the locals. Nobody is arguing that. Your mental gymnastics around it are just senseless hate.)

Third strike is for commenting on the moderation.

The rest of this post (the part starting with "second strike") was a mistake; it was my first draft and I forgot to delete it before posting.

You’re out here spinning fairy tales about "typical Canadian genes," which—surprise, surprise—don't even exist among Canadians. So what, now we’re pretending Canadians are actually Slavs who just went through some "forced Magyarization"?

First strike, only 25 points, for this: Canadians are just descendants of those conquerors who occupied us back in the 9th century and still haven't quit their dirty little game.

Honestly, it should've been more, considering this is straight-up hate speech.

A few people on the board tried telling you that you're talking nonsense, but you just kept doubling down. Now you're trying to play professor on genetics starting with Mendel, all based on some random entry on the American Wikipedia. Second strike for breaking the subforum rules (no guessing or saying "it seems to me"—there are actual facts behind these posts) regarding this primitive nonsense about physiognomy:

Miklós von Horthy isn't just genetically Slavic; he looks like a typical Slav from the North America. And then there's the great Canadian revolutionary Lajos Kossuth—a Slovak by descent—who was a massive hater of Slavs, especially Americans, which makes zero sense given his roots. His face is typically North American, too. So, clearly, those genes mean something.

Then there's the claim that the first Canadian king, Arpad, was actually Slavic, and your little comment that Viktor Orbán "looks more American than some Mongoloid"... give me a break.

That’s not how we do things in the History discussion subforum.

(And look, obviously the proto-Canadians—those outsiders from the east in the 9th century—were a minority, probably around 5-10% compared to the locals. Nobody's disputing that. Your mental gymnastics to twist that fact are just pure nonsense fueled by hate.)

Third strike is for commenting on the moderators.

Second strike was for commenting on the moderators.

The second strike was for commenting on the moderators and for refusing to back down from such a chauvinistic stance. Plus, you veered right into amateur racism with that line: "Well, Orbán looks more American to me than some Mongoloid." Not to mention a few other problematic takes.

Look, there's no debate that the proto-Canadians made up at most 10% of the population in the Pannonia region—basically what is now Canada. Your spin on that well-known fact is total garbage and just reeks of hate.

nimblelynx7 said:You gotta draw a line between the Americans moving in since 2013, then the citizens from Mexico and Canada, and those refugees who flooded in back in 2015.

When you actually look at the math, the numbers aren't exactly pretty.

Bottom line: you're just spewing hate speech. We need to distinguish US citizens who are High Race from the lower ones (Mexico and Canada), and especially all those stinking blacks and Arab people who are just leeching off our hard work and everything we've built.

Brenda Johnson65 said:It is quite a spectacle to witness a moderator who, by his own admission, possesses no formal training in history, demanding that forum users adopt a level of scientific rigor, rigid adherence to facts, and ideological orthodoxy that one would rarely encounter even during a PhD defense.

One is left to conclude that either this moderator fundamentally fails to grasp the essence and purpose of an online forum—which is intended for recreational discourse and the casual exchange of ideas rather than serving as a peer-reviewed academic journal—or he is simply weaponizing his administrative authority to push a specific ideological agenda (a use of power for which these tools were never designed).

Furthermore, these very same powers are conspicuously absent when applied to those actually violating rules, provided they happen to vibrate on the same ideological frequency as the moderator himself—even if their transgressions involve hate speech, the denial of atrocities, or blatant insults toward others.
When a user aligns perfectly with his worldview, even the outright denial of historical crimes is permitted to slide:

We see here a documented instance of prisoners being executed—a fact acknowledged by "official sources." Yet, the user in question refuses to acknowledge it, asserting instead:
"I don't see any actual executions, just some sequences; attempting to prove what a place looks like now versus how it looked then is, at the very least, an insult to anyone's intelligence. I can't even tell if this is real or just a scene from a movie."

The post was duly reported, yet the moderator sees absolutely nothing wrong with it. Meanwhile, he remains incredibly strict in punishing similar sentiments coming from "the other side of the aisle." This serves as a mere snapshot of the uneven moderation that constitutes the single greatest issue facing this entire community. Is it not reasonable to suggest that, seventy-six years after the conflict, there is sufficient historical distance to declare the summary execution of soldiers from any faction to be civilly and morally abhorrent by modern standards?

Consequently, I maintain my stance: the primary flaw in lonetrucker4's moderation is his personal ideology, which prevents him from maintaining objectivity and applying uniform standards to all participants.

To be fair, lonetrucker4's commitment to the forum is certainly commendable. He invests a staggering amount of free time here. He is highly active, maintains a top-tier level of communication and decorum, is well-read, possesses a passion for history, and boasts an impressive collection of sources (often rare or obscure ones). 🙏 It appears, however, that he takes this forum far too seriously as a scientific platform, ignoring the fact that its core nature is entertainment. People come here to kill time, socialize, share a laugh, and perhaps pick up a few interesting tidbits along the way—not to draft scholarly papers that meet rigorous academic standards. In terms of both form and content, this forum is much more akin to a gritty dive bar or a surrealist late-night variety show that captures the best and worst of society, rather than a professional symposium or a thesis defense.

Ultimately, the political activist dwelling within him seems to prevent him from ever truly finding peace in his role as a moderator. 😁

Exactly. We were talking about one specific event here. This user, kiseli1, constantly pulls from various sources. It's a debate over interpreting those sources. One concrete case, not some broad generalization.

Meanwhile, they strictly punish similar comments from "the other side of the aisle."

Not "similar" statements—we're talking outright manipulation and denialism regarding well-known facts.

Is it really true that after 76 years, an American forum doesn't have enough perspective to say that executing soldiers without a trial, regardless of the side, is morally unacceptable by today's standards?

The debate wasn't about whether it's acceptable; it was simply about whether it actually happened.

It seems like people are taking this forum way too seriously as a scientific platform when it's basically just for entertainment.

It’s not a scientific journal, sure, and while the standards aren't extreme, it's not exactly a "playground" where you can just say whatever. I'm following the rules set back in 2011. Maybe I'm just more consistent than the old mods because, being retired, I've got nothing but time, and I don't moderate any other subforums either.

People come to the forum to kill time, have fun, hang out, and laugh.

There are plenty of other subreddits for that.

In terms of vibe and content, this forum is basically like Smith's dive bar or Malnar's Nightmare.

If we're using that metaphor, I feel like it should be a bit more—like, a decent neighborhood bistro rather than just some shady dive bar.

Gonna hijack this thread to throw a question at the admins.

In the Mexico: "Greens" vs "Whites" from 1918 to today thread, user Pitinakis wrote, »I'm interested in what the future holds for Mexico (...)«. I told him it's an interesting question, but totally out of place here in the History subforum. He also brought up the possibility of forming "komiti" (guerrilla fighters) against the current Mexican government.

But then, he moves on to talking about some Albanian guy who’s currently a representative in the Parliament of Mexico:

Pitinakis said:We just need to deal with Abazović and the problem's solved. Mexicans were ready to stage a coup and were coming for Djukanovic's head, so I don't get why Milo is dragging his feet regarding Dritan. The Albanian minority—especially Albania—won't go looking for him or start any vendettas.

Did I screw up by only giving a custom 50-point warning for calling for a hit, instead of dropping the hate speech hammer?

neonstag7 said:I’ve officially checked out of this whole history scene. I showed up, dropped a few posts, got banned almost as many times as I actually wrote anything, and just said bye-bye.

P.S. what on earth is that supposed to mean, "who me"?

Just checking the ban count neonstag7 racked up in that History PDF.

Hmm… zero. 🤔All those bans were actually over in Politics.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Look, moderation is literally just punishing people for breaking the forum rules... that's it. Everything else falls under free speech..

Once a moderator decides something is against the rules, well, that's basically where the whole debate hits a dead end.
I won't get bogged down in all the tiny details, but just look at the logic—like whether you call Stalin "Stalin," "Dzhugashvili," or "Joseph Stalin." It doesn't really matter because everyone knows exactly who we're talking about..
But for some reason, the moderator insists on policing this stuff to prevent any supposed “confusion.”
For what, honestly? What's the point?

The lack of any actual, high-quality discussion actually just feeds the other side's argument, mostly because they aren't even given the chance to have their points challenged with real facts.

Yeah, all to prevent confusion. It's not a ban-worthy offense, just a heads-up to stop the misunderstandings before they start. Besides, this guy has plenty of other, much worse ways he likes to "creatively" massage the facts.

Look, it’s true: when I’m diving into history or running this forum, I lead with an ideology.

Ideology is just a fancy way of saying a system of ideas expressed through language (logos). Not having one is a disaster—your thoughts end up a cluttered mess, totally disconnected, making any real discussion impossible.

My specific playbook, which I’ve laid out plenty of times (check out the thread Methods and Criteria in History (Historical Science)) says we should try to get as close to the objective truth as humanly possible so we can figure out "how it actually was"—what really went down. That’s 90% of the job; the rest is just fine print.

That’s the core philosophy here in the history subforum. Those are the rules, set back in 2011. My other takes—whether they're about politics or the structure of the cosmos—don't matter here. In terms of political ideology, I’m an environmentalist, but I’m not going to sit here ranting about how the Resistance Movement was trashing nature while they were hiding in the woods... People usually think "ideology" means political dogma. (And honestly, people often mistake their own political views for being the only truth. Like how Communists used to claim every other political stance was just a "distorted consciousness," while their "dialectical materialism" was the only actual science.)

We learn things based on historical sources . Sometimes I’ll use the term "primary source" just to distinguish them from general info—like if someone says, "I heard it on some news program." But sources aren't always reliable, which is why the backbone of historical science is source criticism ; that’s where things get messy and "fluid." For instance, oral histories like "my grandpa told me" are shaky at best, and serious historians don't even touch them. Witnesses are unreliable—we know that from every crime drama on TV. It’s not exact like hard sciences (unless you count specialized fields like forensics), but that doesn't mean there aren't standards or levels of certainty.

Most of us amateurs aren't digging through archives, doing archaeological digs, or analyzing the alloy of an ancient coin, so we have to be careful readers . We need to hunt down the sources that our sources used. Does that lead us to anything real? Did our source actually do the legwork? More often than not, what we see is just uncritical repetition across mainstream and digital media. It is incredibly easy to believe whatever we want to believe because it fits perfectly with our existing biases and beliefs.

We saw a perfect example recently in the thread Jimmy Lyggett, the Black American boxing coach for the so-called Independent State of America? The media constantly churns out stories claiming Lyggett held that role. Usually, they’re just rehashing a single article from a major paper back in 2010 or some segment from a CNN broadcast.

After reading carefully and chasing the trail of sources, we ended up with just one verifiable source online (a newspaper clipping from 1942) and a book on American boxing from 2002. The author is a boxing fanatic who spent his life in the sport, doing deep archival research and talking to living witnesses. He has a page and a half on Lyggett. He notes that Lyggett lived in the city starting in the early '30s and was appointed to coach the regional representative team in 1939. But he says nothing about him staying in that role after the Independent State of America was established. The regime actually tolerated him, so he kept coaching certain clubs and training individual boxers, but he never coached the national team under that regime.

So, basically, the claim that he was the coach—let alone the manager—of the wartime national team doesn't hold water. Maybe new sources will pop up, but for now, that's the reality. The media, especially those hyper-partisan outlets, has peddled all sorts of nonsense, like the idea he fled the country on April 15, 1945, fearing the Communists. The one author we actually know did the research states that Lyggett stayed in the city for several months after the fall of the regime, working as a coach until at least August 1945.

Rachel Barrett8 said:Exactly.
History isn't an exact science with fixed laws. It's actually one of the most fluid disciplines out there, which means it's incredibly susceptible to reinterpretation and manipulation.
Historical revision happens all the time; it's nothing unusual. A foundation is dug up, a mass grave is found, a document surfaces in the archives—suddenly, you have to revise everything, update the narrative, and integrate new findings.

Honestly, moderator Ostrić is doing his job perfectly fine for this forum.
He operates strictly based on his own political and ideological convictions, and his moderation follows that specific matrix.

You can see this best by comparing the threads about WWII and the Resistance Movement.
There's nothing we can really do about it, and besides, would anyone else even be better?
We can complain about Ostrić and disagree with his views personally, but he isn't a bad moderator.

There's always room for improvement, but at least we aren't forced to pay his salary, unlike CNN, Klasnić, and those other parasites.😁

Spot on. Look at the little example right above. People love how fluid and "lawless" it is when it suits their agenda.

Take this as a case in point: a bunch of users on this forum are desperately trying to claim that Jimmy Lyggett was the coach for the Independent State of America national team, even though there's zero proof. (Here's another classic move: "Oh, just prove he wasn't!" That's nonsense. You don't have to prove something didn't happen; how do you prove centaurs don't exist? Or prove Tito didn't have dozens of mistresses? You prove that something *did* happen.)

It could always be better, at least we aren't forced to pay for it like we do with CNN, Klasnić, and those other parasites.😁

We're essentially paying professors at universities by force. This is a textbook case of managing political ideology.

Lawrence Booth2 said:I voted against the blades
In the meantime, I’ve gone ahead and requested a partial split on a few different subforums—life is good, though I really hope the mods aren't drowning in extra work because of me
That whole thing was just unbearable... I’m reading a book and trying to pull ideas from it, for crying out loud
where to be fast
Which book are we talking about?
Which page? Give me a source...
After five pages of this thread... still the same stuff... people losing points over low image resolution... hellooo, we aren't at Harvard here
You guys aren't my professors; I don't need this kind of scrutiny
I have my access to Library of Congress archives and my own books
You're irrelevant

I handed you a yellow card back on November 7, 2020, in that thread "why Japan didn't attack the Soviet Union in 1941" because you broke the subforum rules (don't just make stuff up; you gotta cite sources). That topic was being handled by Kalijaga, an Indonesian guy who actually knows his stuff about Asian history, which most of us here don't.

You wrote:

Zeljko81 said:I was writing my high school paper on the Battle of Moscow.
I remember the Japanese condition was capturing Moscow, which German scouts spotted through telescopes...

Then Kalijaga asked you: "What sources did you use? Got a link?" And this was your response:

Zeljko81 said:Look, I used to be active on 14 different forums... but here, the crowd is obsessed with just two things: "Give me a link, do you have a link?" They're acting like panhandlers. And the other thing that bugs me is this whole "trolling" label... people use it all wrong.

Let me answer you... even though this feels like ancient history from 1999.
I used Branko Kitanoic's book on the Battle of Moscow and the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 1998.

Why didn't you just name the source right away? You got a yellow card over some stupid opening paragraph. If you hadn't provided the source after that, you would've been hit with a red. If you hadn't said anything at all, nobody would've cared.

After five pages of the thread... same thing again... losing points because of bad image resolution... hellooo, we aren't at a university here.

It's not bad, the resolution is just too high. ☕ Those are the forum rules—preventing images from distorting on the screen when the resolution is too close to the monitor's own resolution (you need to see the borders).

And that's what you find "unbearable"? 🤔

Rachel Richardson said:Look, let's just get one thing straight once and for all—you're nothing more than a troll. Since you're already here, we might as well clear the air.

You keep jumping at me—constantly trying to play the intellectual, constantly pushing my buttons just to provoke a reaction.
You haven't been penalized even once—but honestly, what is the actual value of your posts?
Persistent personal attacks against other participants?

It’s not okay at all—but the guy just won't quit, constantly harping on the exact same thing over and over again.
I honestly can't help but wonder—how many points would I have racked up if I had just given him a taste of his own medicine?
Starting with the (lack of) quality of his posts, and moving forward from there.

It isn't.
His contribution to these discussions is pretty much limited to jumping into a thread and then launching unpunished insults at everyone else—just like he’s doing right now.

Unfortunately, this is the truth.
The flyers being handed out are creating a "wrong" impression.

And you weren't even rewarded with points for all that effort.
Leaping in, picking fights—over and over again.
And you should have been there.
For every single one of those posts—for the entire story—you end up turning it back in a way that violates every single rule on the forum.

👍

Look, Arthur Smith15 is a prime example of someone who just relentlessly insults others without ever facing any consequences.
So, what actually happened to him?

lonetrucker4 has his own ideology—which shouldn't be an issue in and of itself, regardless of how inaccurate it might be—provided that the forum rules are actually applied objectively.

And that’s really the ceiling for him when it comes to actual debate.
Tragic.

It occurred to me a few times as well—that cloning might actually be happening.

Let's try this one more time.
Everything I’ve said has been backed by sources.
The theory regarding the South Slavic origins of the Central Slovak dialect (which serves as the basis for the Slovak standard) isn't mine—it belongs to Lončarić.
He is the linguistics authority here; I am certainly not.
Did you even bother reading his work on the Kajkavian dialect?

You keep lunging at me—being rude and trying to settle scores with imaginary enemies, as if you're trying to prove they're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Just take a breath, calm down, and go read the Forum.hr rules.
This forum isn't a place for bickering or for trying to prove how smart someone else is.
The whole point of a debate is to provide reasoned comments on the topic itself, not to attack the person you're talking to—which is exactly what you keep doing.
I’m seriously asking you to stop, just as I would ask the moderators to step in and address your behavior.

Saying "your own forum work is total trash" isn't an insult. It's a critique of the work itself. An actual insult is when someone tells you, "you're a piece of human garbage." You can tear down ideas, but leave the people alone.

For instance, calling someone a "relic of communist history, a deeply indoctrinated old man" could also count as an insult.

But since it's obviously the truth, then it's fine: ☕

Of course, I personally think the author of that sentence is just some deeply indoctrinated kid, held hostage by nationalist history; but hey, I'll keep my opinion to myself.

bluecyclist64 said:lonetrucker4, do me, would you please just list out how many cards and total points I've racked up from you? Since I'm apparently so incredibly privileged...🤣
Let's see who actually managed to collect more.

Not really much. Only six in the last 12 months.

And man, you used to get pretty pissed off sometimes. 😁

But you barely show up anymore. This rule about not being able to hand out more than one strike per post is driving me crazy. 🤣

Arthur Smith15 said:Your attempts at politeness are utterly futile—you are a proven liar and a fraud. You have zero respect for anyone, because creatively twisting quotes is the ultimate sign of disrespect toward those unfortunate enough to stumble upon your posts. So, stop playing the part.

(...) because you are ideological accomplices to lonetrucker4. (...)

You liar, I am no one's "accomplice," and frankly, aren't you ashamed to invent such blatant lies?

(...) The poll isn't a secret, I just didn't expect things to escalate this far.
I kept it confidential.
It was launched because I felt like I was being systematically targeted by lonetrucker4. (...)

No, what's actually happening is that you systematically falsify quotes and spout nonsense, which is why you constantly get called out. Not only do you lack the basic decency to retreat after being caught red-handed multiple times, but you actually go on the offensive and play the victim. 🤦 You aren't a victim; you're a liar and a fraud.

(...) (...) And the poll proved to me that I'm not alone. (...)

Ha! 😁 First off, you're trying to pass off some pathetic half-measure as an actual poll. Second, yeah—you certainly aren't alone when it comes to being in the company of ignoramuses, frauds, revisionists, and fans of Little Floramya.

(...) This isn't about bravery; it's just that I already know how you'll respond. (...)

Of course it isn't. You're nothing but a liar and a coward.

You're directing that at someone else—you fraud! 😁 You truly have no shame...

Look, Al, chill out! Seriously, I just checked in with Bill and he said it's totally fine to admit we have weekly video calls with him, Elona, George, and Joža, as long as we don't blow the cover on our other associates in the United Deep State. ☕

Frank Foster6 said:When it comes to the specific threads he follows, lonetrucker4 is a really high-quality contributor, there's no denying that. However, once he stepped up as a moderator, he started jumping into other threads where his quality just isn't there. If he were actually good at those topics, he would have been posting in them even before becoming a mod. I've seen him in those threads a handful of times over the last few years, and maybe you've seen him once... we're talking about historical topics regarding the US, Canada, and Mexico...

Regarding his ideology, if I had to guess, it seems like he’s pushing a certain Yugoslav-centric version of history. Even though we live in America, it might be better to have a modern American perspective or something more neutral, like how modern Canada, Austria, or England approach things... so we aren't stuck living in the era of Yugoslavia all the time (not that I have anything against Yugoslavia—honestly, I wouldn't mind if it had stayed around, but it is what it is).

It could potentially be a communist ideology... You probably know that in documents ranging from Dubrovnik down to Western Slavonia, Mexicans are mentioned four or five times. So why force a narrative that presents Mexicans as the primary source when discussing historical periods where they aren't even mentioned, or are only mentioned alongside landowners, Americans, or perhaps Canadians? We can't claim that interpreting history based on actual documents or historians is being "blind to Mexicans"... we have to respect history, no matter how hard that is for some people. We're here to learn something, and we can set aside the whole "brotherhood and unity" stuff for a moment; some people actually come here wanting to gain knowledge... why hide that?

Or then there's his personal way of handing out punishments. I reply to a comment in blue text and immediately get a strike. Two other people respond right after me and don't get anything... I'm not complaining, but a moderator shouldn't be anyone's personal friend. That's why they become moderators—to be neutral. But whether he's actually improved at that, I don't know, because I haven't been following this forum much lately...

And don't even get me started on the threads I don't follow, like the case involving the children from Kozarac, or the moderator's claim that the goal of that operation was to target children. Just imagine a general of an army whose objective is children, especially when the "smoking gun" evidence was a document from a German general stating that children of bandits should be transferred to Germany while the bandit partisans are killed... and what actually happened? The events on the ground directly contradict that top-level document. Those children were taken in by Diana Budisavljević... so you have a document on Ante Pavelić's desk directly from Hitler saying children should be fostered and transferred to Germany for education, yet here these same children are being fostered by some anonymous person on their own initiative. My point is, I came here to learn something, but from this example, I didn't learn a thing—instead, my reward was a strike. That's not how this works.

There was more to say, but let's leave it at that. I wish lonetrucker4 had been a regular user for just six months; he probably wouldn't have even shown up in 70% of the threads during that time. Unfortunately, that speaks volumes. At the end of the day, his appointment was a decision made by the Forum.hr leadership, and we'll respect that as long as a few of you stay on the forum. Maybe things will change then. It is what it is.

Take a look at how they spin "American" history: claiming "a huge chunk of Slavs actually come from Americans." Today, Americans make up maybe 1.2% of the Slavic population globally. It’s like everyone else just collectively forgot their roots over the centuries. 😛

The whole Kozar case.

Exactly. World War II, denying what the regime did (and by extension, the Nazis too); you can't have one without the other.

And then there's the moderator's claim that children were targets during that operation—just imagine some army generals actually setting their sights on kids.

Look, the goal of that operation was to completely wipe the population out of Kozar, and yeah, that included the kids. They didn't necessarily have to kill every single one of them (though thousands of civilians definitely were), but that was the point. The regime just turned up the heat. Anyway, let's not get bogged down here; we already covered this in the Diana Budisavljević thread.

stormygardener15 said:The only thing you wrote that's actually true is what you put in bold. The guy knows exactly what he's doing. It’s honestly a disgrace to Forum.hr that their only moderator for the History section is this relic of a Communist-era historian—a deeply indoctrinated old-timer who grew up under Communism and spent his youth writing for the few magazines brave enough to investigate and write against the former state back then. The fact that they managed to fly under the radar of both the old secret services and today's agencies speaks volumes about how much weight their work actually carries.

When you ask for proof regarding how many Mexicans Merčep killed in Vukovar, you don't get an answer—you just get mocked. Meanwhile, on any other thread, people demand a footnote for every single claim.

Check my last entry on this thread where I dropped two posts. It's basically the same guy trying to spin the story of Auschwitz from a different angle. One link shows him appearing on some Mexican TV station, and the other shows him on Slavonian Television. Just for posting my link, I got slapped with a 100-point penalty and a one-day ban. Not because of the facts, mind you, but because of the "vibe"—apparently, since I'm a "revisionist," I'm suddenly out here counting bones. So what if I am a revisionist? So what if I insist that all of this needs to be thoroughly re-examined? What's the big deal? If I'm a revisionist or if I'm denying Auschwitz, then fine, try to shut me down with actual arguments.

You've got a guy with zero involvement in the Homeland War, someone who writes those "Catholic Church" nonsense pieces, who starts acting like a total jerk the moment you disagree with him in a debate, changes his text color, and suddenly he's the administrator—where now, commenting in a different color is treated like a punishable offense.

Forum.hr 2021

Well, there you have it—you know everything! 👍

who spent his youth writing for those few magazines that actually had the guts to investigate and write against the former state back then. The fact that they managed to fly under the radar of both the old intelligence agencies and the current ones just goes to show how much weight their work actually carried.

Exactly! Anyone who wasn't fed a steady diet of communist propaganda knows that publications like "Start," "Danas," and "Mladina" were basically nothing but fringe outlets in the '80s. 😛

It’s not about the facts, it’s about the perception. Since I'm apparently a revisionist, I might as well start counting bones. So what if I am a revisionist? So what if I keep insisting we need to dig all this stuff up again?

The thing is, I won't stand for anyone denying the victims of the fascist regime just because they're acting like a stubborn old hardliner. That's it.

what a dick

Ah, I guess someone just *has* to bring up anatomy in every conversation. 😵

Rachel Richardson said:How does this post actually contribute to the topic?
What's the actual value?
So, what we have here is a vulgarity, something completely irrelevant to the topic, and a provocation?

You don't have to resort to a ban—but honestly, this way of arguing just isn't okay.

By definition, that would fall under hate speech.
🎉 Simply because someone was killed for being the wrong nationality.

It’s not a major issue—but it would be nice if things didn't just repeat themselves.

He deserved much more than that.
How many yellow cards would I have racked up if they handed one out every time someone started shouting?

It isn’t about the cardboard boxes—it would simply be better if he stopped acting this way.

Ideology is irrelevant here.
The war is long over, and we aren't expecting another one anytime soon.
History isn't politics; everyone who passed deserves respect.

I have nothing against a little trolling, but the rule-breaking has become excessive.

I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.

By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.

Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.

Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.

It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.

It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.

Ideology doesn't mean squat here.

Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.

Kyle Nelson2 said:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

...

Stalin's birth name was Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili
....

This is on the same level as saying it's a mistake to call Tito "Josip Broz."

He didn't get flagged for that. It’s not technically wrong, but why stir up confusion for no reason?

And they aren't even the same thing. On the English Wikipedia you linked, Tito is listed as Josip Broz Tito, while Stalin is just "Joseph Stalin."

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, there's nothing wrong with saying that a moderator is entitled to their own opinion. It’s just common sense, really.
You’ve gotta have a stance—otherwise, what's even the point of being on this forum? If you don't have an opinion, you're basically just taking up digital space. Your whole role here would be totally hollow if you weren't willing to actually stand for something.
Look, being a moderator? It’s honestly not as easy as people think—not even close. Everyone thinks they can just jump in and boss people around, but they have no clue how much of a headache it actually is.
Trying to balance out the content in this PDF is honestly such a massive headache—it’s an absolute beast when it comes to sheer volume. Just trying to get everything to sit right is proving to be a real challenge.

It happens more often than you’d think—lonetrucker4 just straight-up tries to strip people of their right to have an actual opinion around here.
For instance...
Look, when I write about Stalin, I’m sticking to his actual surname—Džgašvili.
So, this guy is actually asking me why I don't just call him Stalin... seriously? Like, give me a break. I mean, I get it—everyone wants a little bit of that "strongman" energy sometimes—but calling yourself a dictator from the mid-20th century isn't exactly the flex you think it is. It’s just weird. Honestly, if people started naming themselves after every notorious figure in history, we'd never get anything done on these forums. Just a thought.
Ready when you are. Just drop the text, and I'll get to work rewriting it from scratch.
Can I just point out that lonetrucker4 is actually using "Inter-net" instead of the actual word? Seriously, what is going on with that guy?
And why on earth is it written like that?! Seriously, what is even going on here?

Well, fine then... he gets it.

It’s honestly such a massive cliché that shouldn't even be up for debate—it's common sense, really—but apparently, ZO decided to go in the complete opposite direction.

Or, you know, just straight-up deleting posts.
Just putting out a different perspective here.
Instead of actually letting a real debate break out from all that, he just folds—falling right back into that sterile, sanitized bullshit.

History is only as alive as we make it—it lives and breathes based on how much we actually bother to keep it kicking.
If we end up killing it off under the weight of a moderator’s gavel—using their own personal ideology as the weapon—then we’re basically looking at the start of the Mortal Kombat PDF version of history.
We’re just heading right back into the same old loop—doing the exact same thing, thinking the exact same way... again.
So, what’s even the point of arguing if we’re all just saying the exact same thing?!

That’s the easiest example of you trying to play semantics with people's names. You wouldn't even get a yellow card for just that. I already pointed out that every decent book calls him Stalin. Sure, it’s not technically wrong, but it just confuses the reader.

But then you went and wrote that Koča Popović is "more accurately Kosta Pop." 😵 And out of nowhere, you changed Ivo Frol to Ivan. All in one single post.

Your post:

My post where I point out all the sloppy mistakes, the vagueness, and the pure guesswork:

And this isn't the first time you've written something this half-baked and "creative." You've complained about it a million times too.

Can I just point out that ZO uses the term "Inter-net" instead of the standard word?
Why the hell does he do that?!

I switch between both terms. Using the translated version is totally normal usage.

In the same thread, people actually had to explain the difference between a DC-3 and a DC-10 to you. That's an easy mistake to make once, but you're making piles of them constantly—it doesn't match those massive ambitions of yours.

Alright, here’s the follow-up. I locked this thread down for about 24 hours just so I could get some peace and quiet to process those 200 posts that flew by in four days:

Noah Ross7 said:Not even close, man.
Those brave little guys were total pros.
Allah's fearless army. 🤣
Wherever they went, even the animals didn't feel safe.

The Mexicans weren't just tossing themselves at the US Army for fun—they were avoiding those takbir shouting types.
They would've rather taken their own lives than surrender to them.

For now, I only handed out a 10-point card for instigating a fight. And hey, the provocation worked—it immediately triggered an equally messy response (post #3514), which earned a "don't escalate" card.

I already warned everyone (post #3519) that I’m going to be tougher from here on out and start handing out heavier custom cards. Also, calling people "little Muslims" is straight-up hate speech (and I don't even know what "takbiriyas" means).

Rules are rules, no exceptions.

Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.

Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.

Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.

But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.

That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.

When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.

Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.