Posts by Carol Lopez23

shadowpanther26 said:I find it quite disgraceful that individuals employing such language are permitted to serve as moderators on this forum.

Linda Stewart26 said:I could really use some guidance here.
I attempted to use the search engine to locate a specific discussion regarding magnesium chloride, but it feels as though I would have to sift through endless pages of content just to find what I am looking for. I simply couldn't quite navigate the process—or perhaps I just lacked the necessary patience—so please, if anyone could offer some assistance or a few tips on how to reach my destination more efficiently in the future, I would be most grateful.

Emily White9 said:Goodness gracious, folks...🙂
The first day of your period, plus an additional seven days... that is how gynecologists calculate the start of a pregnancy...

Sam Alvarez4 said:If you add the center to the left... who exactly gets added to the right?...
Who do the ultra-Orthodox actually back in the US Congress? Are they strictly right-wing, or more like free agents... 🤷

To be honest, I’m feeling a bit too lazy to slog through that whole "party platform" guide... so if someone could just give me the quick rundown on this issue, that would be amazing...

That’s just typical for American journalists. Honestly, most of them don't have a clue about the topics they cover... since everyone seems to be writing about everything...

The Likud-Beiten coalition remains the most significant political force, having secured the highest number of votes and seats in Congress. While they did not achieve an absolute majority, the party holding the most seats maintains a distinct advantage when it comes to forming a coalition. Yair Lapid and his party were truly the great surprise of these elections, and he has emerged as a formidable political partner whom no one can afford to overlook. I anticipate that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might commence coalition talks by the end of next week once the official and final election results are certified. While I do not expect the negotiations to be overly arduous or protracted, the Prime Minister will need to make a decisive choice regarding the ideological direction of the upcoming government—explains Yosef Amrani, the Ambassador of the State of Israel to America. He further suggests that Netanyahu will likely act with strategic wisdom by assembling a government composed of partners from the center-left, the right, and a single religious faction, thereby potentially securing a robust majority of at least 69 seats in Congress.

Terry Nelson26 said:I find myself grappling with a question regarding our "alternative" community. Why is it that certain members are permitted to insult others by implying they are on cocaine, or by condescendingly questioning their educational backgrounds—which, quite frankly, is often misplaced? It seems offensive content is frequently unleashed, yet when a single user dared to mention Alex Jones (simply because of the facts surrounding the harm caused by energy-efficient bulbs) within a thread dedicated to those very bulbs, an admin or moderator threatened them with a ban. One has to wonder: would such a reaction occur if someone had mentioned Thomas Edison during a discussion on scientific principles? Why is this hypocrisy and the constant "lecturing" from self-proclaimed "scientists" tolerated? Furthermore, why is there all this talk about mental institutions and similar rhetoric? If the "alternative" side has essentially become ExxonMobil, then I suppose I understand. Moreover, has anyone else noticed, perhaps by chance, that certain users in the "science" camp relentlessly target "alternative" users whenever the opposite isn't happening? To those of sound mind, I say enough is enough. I am genuinely curious as to who facilitates and why this hypocrisy, these double standards, and this blatant disrespect are allowed to persist. I have observed that while some receive colorful warnings, a threat of a ban for mentioning a figure who provides factual information relevant to the topic is a far more severe matter. Thank you.

slyviper6 said:Is it not possible to simply request that a moderator assist with formatting one's signature? I find myself quite admiring how they curate such polished displays, much like the customized layouts one might see on a professional LinkedIn profile. 😍) 🤷

Maria Fisher46 said:I actually picked up my corner spot there as well. 🙂

Ryan Ruiz95 said:I wasn't quite sure where the best place would be to ask this, so I thought I'd try my luck here. Does anyone happen to know where one might find an item of clothing like this in the Washington, D.C. area, or perhaps even as far out as the suburbs of Northern Virginia?
click on the image to enlarge


The most important thing is that it needs to be white
and feature short sleeves

Thank you all in advance for any help you can provide

silverviper44 said:Indeed, it functions quite remarkably well when you require a rapid response.

I appreciate you bringing that to my attention; I hadn't quite realized the significance of the rule, as my primary focus tends to be on the moments when I am quoting others to drive home a specific point.

casualharbor9 As stated by:
Does one truly believe that an individual who responds to a simple presentation of facts with a flurry of vitriolic personal attacks is somehow lacking in mental stability? It is quite an interesting psychological puzzle, isn't it? One might argue that when someone finds their position dismantled by undeniable evidence, they pivot toward character assassination as a desperate defense mechanism—much like a cornered animal lashing out simply because it can no longer defend its territory. In my view, such a volatile reaction serves as a rather transparent indicator that the person lacks the intellectual fortitude to engage in a rational debate.

In a civilized debate, one might wonder if there is any penalty for someone who simply declares, with absolute certainty, that they find the entire discussion completely incomprehensible. Is such an admission of confusion actually grounds for being penalized?

Is it even possible to label someone who, from the very moment they started duplicating their own arguments, continues to drop these nonsensical pearls that bear absolutely no relation to the actual topic, as a true logician—or perhaps just a "so-called" logician?

casualharbor9 said:It seems we have reached a peculiar crossroads where one is permitted to disparage reason, logic, and the fundamental tenets of natural science without offering a shred of evidence, yet the moment someone attempts to offer a rebuttal, they are met with immediate silence or dismissal. It is quite a curious dynamic, isn't it? It feels as though we are navigating a landscape where irrationality is given a free pass to roam, while the pursuit of a reasoned counter-argument is treated as the true transgression.

casualharbor9 As stated by:
I feel quite strongly that this situation impacts me directly, particularly if I am to be penalized for maintaining the exact same standard of conduct toward others as those who aren't being targeted by such disciplinary actions.

casualharbor9 said:I find myself wondering exactly which specific topics we are expected to refrain from commenting on, and more importantly, how one defines the scope of "everything"? While I certainly understand that off-topic discussions within an alternative thread are perfectly acceptable, it seems there is a certain lack of tolerance regarding the remarks made by casualharbor9 on those very same subjects. I would appreciate some clarity on this matter so that I might navigate our future interactions with the appropriate level of discretion.

casualharbor9 said:Excuse me? Someone acting like a moderator is suddenly setting the agenda, demanding a specific topic? Or is it just someone who hasn't written a single coherent word regarding the subject of Nibiru, yet tries to push an agenda that wouldn't even fly in a university Philosophy department?

If this is meant to be a space for independent thought, it shouldn't function like a psychiatric ward where patients lash out at anyone presenting facts that contradict their personal delusions.
If you intend to maintain even a baseline level of tolerance, you have to demonstrate that attacking people's viewpoints is unacceptable, regardless of whether those views are mainstream or unconventional.

casualharbor9 said:... I am curious about that specific Kerefek post—is it just as much of a caricature or heavily biased, or not?

I am quite certain of what I quoted, and I believe the context is clear to everyone here, yet I find myself wondering which specific part you feel is an exaggeration; I would truly appreciate it if you could point that out clearly...

casualharbor9 said:So, is casualharbor9 somehow responsible for the chain reactions of off-topic bickering?

While users like Tomatix, Henkak, Unreasonable, and Kerefek are supposedly engaged in a perfectly normal, topical debate? (One only needs to look at their respective bodies of work)

Because it seems to me that moderation usually begins with casualharbor9, and more often than not, ends there as well.

casualharbor9 said:So, was that quoted post also flagged and wiped from the board?

casualharbor9 said:And honestly, where exactly did I cross the line?

Just so I can avoid doing it again...