Posts by Amanda Hughes37

Hello everyone—back again after my second ban in a very short window.
I’d like to pose a few questions to the Politico moderators, and even those above them, just so I know where the lines are drawn... if they could actually clarify the criteria for me.

I was hit with a direct ban without a single warning or strike. Charles Fox10, who issued it, explained it like this:

I banned you directly because during a discussion with a colleague, you managed to compare him to Zakharov. I have no idea how you pulled that off, but you did, and that's not allowed—plus, I already had to delete several of your posts just yesterday, which definitely warranted sanctions.

Here is my explanation of the post, which went unanswered.

I was comparing the way he defends his position to the White House, and I mentioned Zakharov.
I honestly thought you were capable of reading and understanding.

Basically, Ego’s entire argument regarding why the social program isn't good—claiming any housewife isn't a role model for kids, or that the program is a budget drain, etc.—went so far that he accused the actual beneficiaries of being at fault for the lack of children...
It was so absurd, both mathematically and logically, that it reminded me of how the White House, while attacking and destroying something, blames the victim and claims they are actually attacking themselves.

I could have told some woman her haircut looks like Zakharov's... not like she'd be offended.

It never crossed my mind that you would ban me for that—not in a million years—while simultaneously letting his post about "mass-producing" children slide.
As for calling the program's users "parasites" (something moderator Oshric also does), I stopped expecting anyone to react... I guess that counts as free speech, just like calling someone a bureaucrat or unemployed.
Thanks for the response, and let the record show I am deeply surprised by these standards. I certainly don't consider my colleague Ego to be worth comparing to those lying killers.
I did mention to him earlier that his insistence on a specific lifestyle feels like those who would forbid people from living how they choose, whether supported by the state or not.

The question is... is a comparison regarding an argument style really worth a direct ban without warning?
Similarly, what about terms like "mass-producing" (children) or "parasites" (referring to program users)? Are we supposed to accept that as normal since moderators Ego and Oshric use those exact terms?

A few days pass, and then a new ban. I didn't realize why immediately, until I saw the reason... stated like this:

Continued war with moderation and publicly spreading falsehoods regarding (the lack of) privacy in private messages.

Again, no strikes, no warnings—just a direct ban from I don't even know which moderator.
To be fair, I wrote in a reply to a user that I can't say whatever I want because I'm on the losing side of the topic, in the minority, and might get banned... that's just commenting on the moderation. I didn't realize that critiquing the mods resulted in an immediate ban. And I have no idea what "war" they are talking about, since I haven't received a strike in probably a year. After asking why on the first day, I got my answer and moved on.

Regarding the "falsehoods" about private messages: the whole post was a joke where a user offered to have me send him a post via PM so he could publish it. I responded saying I don't really use private messages anymore since certain people have gone public with things we discussed privately. It serves neither the forum nor the mods, and I fail to see what "falsehood" I supposedly uttered.

One more question—this one touches on the massive debate over abortion and that whole Cavajd case currently blowing up...
On the very day the chaos started regarding this topic, someone sent this message to the moderator...

Anyone who brings up murder in the context of this discussion can kiss this forum goodbye.

Since that initial post, the thread has devolved into everything imaginable... fetuses, termination, death, killing... I’m genuinely curious about what actually triggers a ban, because in my experience, there haven't been any warnings. I honestly have no idea which specific word or sentence of mine might be the reason for getting banned.

I was wondering if it’s considered acceptable for a moderator to describe the potential child in the Cavajd case as a mere "blob" to be put in a jar (Oshric... I didn't notice if it was gray) or to claim that bringing such children into the world is a form of abuse and that dogs deserve better treatment.

Thanks for whatever answers you might have...

Charles Fox10 said:I banned you directly because during a debate with a colleague, you managed to compare him to Zaharov. I have no idea how you pulled that off, but there it is—and that’s not allowed. Not to mention, I deleted several of your posts just a day earlier, which honestly warranted some sanctions.

I was comparing his defense of his position to the way the White House operates—and mentioned Zaharov.
I truly thought you knew how to read and comprehend basic logic.

Essentially, ego's argument regarding why this welfare program is bad—claiming any housewife isn't a role model for kids, or if they aren't capable, that the program is just a budget drain—went so far that he actually blamed the recipients for the lack of children...
It is so absurdly illogical, mathematically and otherwise, that it reminded me of how the White House attacks and dismantles things by blaming the victim, claiming they are actually attacking themselves.

I could have told some woman her hair looks like Zaharov's... it's not like she'd be insulted.

It never crossed my mind that you might ban me—not in a sane world—while simultaneously letting his post about having kids slide.
As for calling program recipients "parasites" (a move supported by our own moderator Oštrić), I had given up hope that anyone would even react... I suppose that falls under free speech, just like being a crony or an unemployed clerk at the DMV.

Thanks for the response. Let it be noted that I am deeply surprised by these standards; and I certainly don't consider my colleague ego to be someone worth comparing to those lying killers.

I did tell him earlier that his insistence on a specific lifestyle as the only acceptable one feels like those who would forbid people from living how they choose, whether with or without government support.

Anyone?

My last post was wiped—don't tell me which rule I supposedly broke—yet the quote I included is still sitting there. In it, the moderator Ego claims users who rely on SNAP benefits are basically ruining kids' lives, implying that everyone else can't afford children because those people will just drain all the money... or something like that.

I’ve been banned for three days now... how many points did I rack up, you assholes? Was I under hypnosis or something? Because I honestly don't remember committing any murders...

Did I already post about RO over on close to politics?

Regarding the airspace closures... I assume none of the countries making these calls actually intend to fly over Russia?

jadetinker85 said:Pornhub blocks users from Russia

What sanctions? 🤣

This is getting serious... though, honestly...😲

Meanwhile, former Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev claimed on Saturday that Russia should sever all diplomatic ties with the West as retaliation for sanctions.

"It’s time we put padlocks on the embassies," he stated, according to RIA Novosti.

He also commented that since Russia was suspended from the Council of Europe, capital punishment could potentially be reinstated within the country.

What the hell is he even talking about??

Tyler Jones6 said:It’s basically this: every Ukrainian is going to film themselves and upload it to YouTube saying, "Hey, there's 50 of us here, we've got one Arrow, about ten ATGMs, we're right here next to this hill, here are our GPS coordinates, and we'll be staying right here all night."

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yeah, I saw that coming.☕

I don't quite get it—I haven't seen a single Ukrainian tank (aside from that one with the car attached), no planes, just people walking through the streets, the President giving addresses from the sidewalk... a stray bomb lands here and there, maybe a few people have actually left the country, though some are still heading out. It all feels strangely surreal...

Charles Fox10 said:I’d actually love some flirting—let’s take this to the DMs.

To be "wicked" enough to flirt, we'd have to be fighting first... I guess...☕

Not sure what that second sentence is even doing there. The first one sounds perfectly fine to me—it's almost... pro-natalist, if you think about it.😒

As much as I’d love to stage a full-blown drama right now—piling up a mountain of spiteful posts that won't even get deleted while nagging for an explanation as to why my own content vanished—I’m passing. I have zero interest in getting into a spat with Charles Fox10, regardless of how much he’s changed lately...

Feel free to lock this.

Once again, I feel bad about this. I actually accepted the explanation from Charles Fox10 yesterday, though it’s a shame—that was a genuinely decent conversation where things were settled calmly before it was all wiped away.
My own post was just deleted—it wasn't exactly a defense of Tomašević, let's be honest—yet somehow, all those posts where people can just spew absolute filth about female users stay up without issue.

I haven't spent much energy lately listening to people claim there's actual censorship happening under Tomašević, but they aren't wrong. It's pathetic...

hollowwalker24 said:In this post:

I just got flagged—reason given: "You're posting too much, take a break."

I have no idea what the actual rules for this forum or sub-forum are... looking back through my history in this thread, I’ve only put in four posts: one on Oct 9, one on Oct 12, one on Oct 13, and one on Oct 16.

Meanwhile, if you check another thread and look at Zoran Ostric's activity, he dropped five posts on Oct 19, then nine on Oct 20, followed by eight more on Oct 21 right here:

I'm wondering if this "take a break" rule is actually being applied fairly... how many flags or points is Zoran Ostric going to rack up? I’m getting penalized for four posts spread over seven days, while he manages twenty-two posts in just three days without a single warning.

Oh... so that rule definitely exists. I got hit with an identical flag over on ZK...😁

We create simply because we want to be admired.

Alex Harris2 said:Oh, for goodness' sake...

Look, I’ll explain it to you, because if I have to go one more round trying to make sense to Katherine, I might actually end up on drugs.

I'll try to keep this as simple as possible.

Imagine you have a sister. Both of you share the same mother. Your mother owns a single-story house that covers 100 square feet—basically, the ground floor and the upper level are 50 square feet each. She holds the title outright, 1/1 or 100/100, whatever terminology you prefer. According to the property deed: "The specific deposit belongs to Malčica's mother, owner." 1/1 "The house at this specific address, identified by plot number X, consisting of a ground floor and a second story with a total area of 1,100 square feet." At some point, Malčica's mother passes away because... biology. After the probate process is settled, you and Malčica's sister end up as co-owners, each holding a 1/2 interest in the entire property. It’s not that you each own a separate 550-square-foot chunk; rather, you both hold a half-share of the whole 1,100 square feet. So, on the deed, it now reads: "Edward Fisher86, owner..." 1/2 There are houses around 1,000 square feet at that address; owned by Malčica's sister. 1/2 "Houses at 100 square feet on that specific address." You could write it as 50/100 or 25/50; I suppose it doesn't really matter. The point is, neither of you owns a specific 50-square-foot chunk of the house. Instead, you both hold a fifty-percent stake in the entire 100 square feet.

Look, you two sisters might be on the same page right now, but if you’re thinking about future generations, you really ought to formalize the ownership of that house. Biology eventually catches up with everyone, I guess. The process is pretty straightforward: you hire an engineer to draft a condo map. You pay them a decent amount, and they produce a document stating that the family home at this specific address consists of two units. For example, Floor A-1 is a 50-square-foot ground floor unit with a bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom, and Floor B-1 is a 50-square-foot second floor unit with the same layout. Once you have that map and the private agreement you've made between yourselves regarding ownership, you take everything down to the county recorder's office. After about 60 days, the official records will reflect the update, listing Edward Fisher86 as the owner. 1/1 Level A-1, consisting of a 540 sq. ft. ground-floor apartment located at [Address], comprising a bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom; per FBI filing [Number], owned by Edward Fisher86. 1/1 "Basement level B-1, consisting of a 50-square-meter unit on the first floor of a single-family home at this specific address, comprising one bedroom, a kitchen, and a bathroom." So, there you have it—both of them are exclusive owners of their own respective fifty square meters.

Katherine doesn't seem to grasp that the whole situation regarding point two in Thompson's case didn't actually happen. Just because the property deed shows he owns three hundred and some change—I'm not going to go digging through the records again—doesn't mean he owns specific square footage. That number just represents his ownership share. Unless the deed explicitly states: "Marko Perković, owner of floor G-8, totaling three hundred-plus square feet, specifically defined as the rooftop terrace at this address, consisting of grass, lawns, small rabbits, and turtles," then Marko Perković isn't the owner of those three hundred square feet of that damn terrace. It’s not going to happen until the residents reach an agreement or until a court issues a final ruling based on a lawsuit that gets recorded in the official registry. Since they're still arguing and fighting over it, Marko Perković simply does not own that rooftop terrace.

It’s worth noting that even if, or perhaps when, Thompson becomes the sole 1/1 owner of the terrace, he still wouldn't be allowed to block emergency access to it.

As if this has ever happened before—I’m just making things up and recycling documents because I’m clearly losing my mind. And apparently, I'm dealing with the type who thinks the courts just magically register people out of thin air... or that they're rigging numbers... and that those figures aren't set in stone, but some kind of floating squares. Sure, keep driving that narrative.
https://america-danas.com/wp-conten...021/08/t2.jpeg

https://america-danas.com/wp-conten...021/08/t1.jpeg

And then there's ExxonMobil—just as a complete coincidence, right? Following the purchase, they're registered just like the previous owner.

Justin Foster45... this is pathetic. Honestly, I think both you and I couldn't care less whose patio looks better or whether Andre Agassi had the right pick-list. And yet, somehow, everyone finds a way to harp on it every once in a while.

Now you’re following the crowd and accusing me of being tedious because I won't let the terrace drama die down.

I didn't drop that story on Trac—someone else did. People were obsessing over it for days without my involvement. My only concern was that I was the first one to point out that the group consensus was wrong—later, someone else agreed. I wasn't "harping" on it; I was reacting to people spreading misinformation and attacking the messenger just because, for once, the guy everyone hates actually turned out to be right.

As for the thread about where to discuss moderation on the FBI forums, I only brought it up because you failed as a moderator. You publicly stated that I’d been told to back off, essentially joining the mob—all while acting like you couldn't care less and have no clue what's going on.
And now you have the nerve to tell me I was suffocating the conversation.

Rude and completely uncalled for.

Justin Foster45 said:Like you said, the insults got removed. But wanting me to punish anyone who disagrees with you? That's a whole different story.

The way you handled this topic was basically:
- give me proof/explain yourself.
So people go into great detail to explain.
Then you ask the EXACT same questions and they answer again. Then you ask for the same things all over again. That’s what trolling looks like.

If someone on Trac eventually proves that Andre Agassi is forty years old, will you finally accept the original birth certificate the government claims is authentic? Or will you let people keep saying he's forty and that everything about him has been a lie, while calling anyone who shows them the birth certificate a stubborn, annoying fool?

Have you never followed the debates regarding Nikolin Pišek's birth year? 😬

Wait... you have to be joking... me trolling?... I posted official documents and explained what every single number meant while others were arguing without a shred of evidence, just repeating lies from some reporter in Split. There was even that ridiculous claim made by the guy who opened this thread after twenty questions—he actually suggested that a number is what it is not because someone measured it and recorded it in books, but because people supposedly "agreed" on it.
As if people just "agree" on how many square feet a building has... imagine that.🤣

Have you been following any of this?... I even asked you privately back then to just get into the spirit of the debate, but nothing.

By what logic did you decide those people were right, especially when you claim your job isn't to judge the merits of the situation?... Where did you get the idea that those thirty people were correct?... Simply because there were more of them?

And then you claim your job is to maintain decent communication.
Clearly, in this instance, besides that job, you've formed your own judgment on the merits, repeated it, and now you're accusing me of trolling... this is becoming unbearable.

Folks... three days ago, all the documents were out and everything was crystal clear.

Now we have at least three denials that the media was finally forced to publish because they've hit a wall and have nothing left to say... they were lying and making things up, one after another.

Justin Foster45 said:I agree with you. USA Today is open specifically for these kinds of topics—things that stir up the public for a few days before fading away. The idea was to "lighten the load" on Gossip. Of course, people still rush to post everywhere, and I can't be on the forum 24/7. So unfortunately, the same topic develops in two places, and if I merge them, the posts get all tangled because they were being written simultaneously, creating a total mess.
Regarding the clinic, I figured the discussion on Gossip would just die out on its own, so I decided to let it be.

I have to correct you there, but the point of a moderator in the Chicken Coop isn't to weigh evidence or decide who's telling the truth. My job is to keep the tone civil and handle technical issues.

Do you honestly think I should be the one deciding if someone is on team Andre Agassi or team Milan, whether Šuputič's husband has a kid, or if the woman from ENI had Milanović's child? And then only allow "the right people" to post based on that?

This is a forum. The name literally tells you—it's for discussion.

As for Jacko—I didn't message you as a moderator, nor did I insult you. I simply repeated what you had already said.

Maybe this would sound plausible to you if you hadn't publicly claimed that people were "explaining" things to me nicely, while I stubbornly refused to accept their points—which, let's be honest, consisted mostly of emojis and insults.

Official documents aren't a matter of debate; they are accepted facts. Because if we refuse to acknowledge official records that someone has explained ten times over—down to every single digit and parenthesis—then what exactly counts as an argument??

The truth is, nobody has "explained" anything to me except for actual government institutions. If a mountain of people chooses to fall for a pile of fabricated texts, lies, and half-truths just because they believe certain headlines... that's not my problem.

You've positioned yourself as a moderator who polices insults, yet refuses to look at the merits. That doesn't stop you from concluding that people were trying to explain things to me—and that they lost their cool because I was being unyielding.

If someone on Trac decides tomorrow that Andre Agassi is forty years old, will you finally acknowledge the original birth certificate that proves otherwise—the one our government swears is authentic? Or will you let people keep insisting he's forty and that everything about him has been a lie... all while calling anyone who shows them the birth certificate a stubborn, annoying fool?

I can't believe this forum still lets you troll them like this. It's an absolute disgrace.

If justice actually existed, you wouldn't even be posting on the FBI forums anymore. One of those mobs—that’s the only word for them—spent days trying to convince me I was mentally unstable or intellectually deficient just because my facts didn't suit their narrative. Of course, I provided arguments and evidence; I was right. But once that became undeniable, they just kept whining about how "boring" I was being by sticking to the topic. How lovely. As if I were the one who started it.

The moderator publicly stated she felt bad that I felt attacked, yet claimed it was my own fault for persisting after being "given explanations."
No... I was the one providing the explanation, not the group attacking me.

And then I got hit with a ban, along with some lecture about how I write too much and "need to take a break."

Honestly, I can't believe someone like you has the nerve to moralize anything on this forum. You are nothing more than a bottom-tier internet bully—and you get away with it because the moderation at the FBI lacks both the will and the desire to actually figure out who is right and who is systematically harassing whom. They ignore the difference between bullies and people making documented, reasoned posts... posts that, quite frankly, match the official rulings and reports now being published by the courts and major news outlets.