Posts by redbear2

Charles Fox10 said:You got your answers last night over in and you realized

And the deletions? They happened last night and they’ll always happen whenever we feel a thread is heading in the wrong direction. Calling out fake assets isn't what this thread is about.☕

Why wasn't the insults sanctioned? If I call someone a "creep," isn't that an insult? Does that mean I can just stroll through the digital streets calling people creeps without consequence?

I have to admit, I haven't the slightest clue what Aaron Harris2 was trying to get at. I have no idea what kind of "proof" he’s talking about; my response to his post makes that pretty clear. You guys jumped on me for nothing. I just told a girl her breasts looked fake. Doesn't that fall under the same umbrella as saying "you have great breasts"? Are you suggesting only positive comments are allowed here? Because if so, isn't saying they look fake a neutral observation?

Look, this thread was created specifically to comment on people's bodies. People shouldn't put themselves out there if they can't handle someone pointing out their chest looks fake or telling them they need to tone their glutes. It’s like how someone shouldn't audition for X Factor if they can't handle someone disliking their singing. Or how someone shouldn't publish a book if they can't deal with bad reviews. Don't you agree? Actually, let me correct myself—it's not quite the same. The difference is I didn't tell anyone they had bad breasts; I just said they looked artificial.

As for my deleted post, I don't see how it steered the conversation off course. A female user wrote she was going to tone her butt for herself, and I simply replied that she probably does her makeup for herself too. If her calling me a "creep" doesn't derail the thread, then I don't see how my comment does. It feels like you mods are just taking her side because she posts photos of her backside, which is pretty unfair. As moderators, you should use your heads, wouldn't you agree?

Alright, here's the deal. I hopped onto The Team and told some girl her breasts looked fake—because, well, they look fake. Then, a user named Aaron Harris2 decides to jump in and call me a "pervert". I reported her for harassment, but for some reason, nothing happened to her post. To make matters worse, I replied to that specific comment, but my response has completely vanished. My reply didn't break any rules; it was pretty much just this: "I bet you only do your makeup for yourself. Since when did you start being insulting? It didn't take long, did it?"

So, why hasn't Aaron Harris2 been flagged for her post?

And why was my post deleted?

If mine was already gone, why wasn't hers wiped out too?

Thanks. I'll just be over here sucking up to management while I wait for an answer.

I honestly don't see the issue here. From what I’ve seen during my time on this subforum, people just drop whatever song they’re vibing to at that moment, which ends up stacking a bunch of posts together, sometimes even back-to-back. It was never a big deal until I caught that warning from the moderator recently. Besides, if someone is actually dying to know exactly what one specific user is listening to, they can just click the post count in the thread and then jump straight to that person's profile.

If you handed me the moderator keys, I’d be handing out bans for that kind of language without even blinking.

I wouldn't say Afro Dita's stuff comes anywhere close to being worth $500 either. 🤷

It seems you all feel that taking action isn't necessary, so feel free to lock this thread. I’m done pointing out the gaps in your moderation team; it’s pretty clear you guys couldn't care less.

Thanks(?), see ya.

Emily Patel70 said:If you think this is libel, go ahead and sue me. Since you’re already busy making threats against the Reddit admins, I might as well point out that I'm the only one here you can actually hold accountable. If you want to file a claim, be my guest—I'll gladly hand over my info so you can send over the summons.

Red herring.

Like I said, I’m more than happy to step up. If you need a star witness to tell the judge that I was the one who called out that foul—when you actually played clean and they unfairly handed you a yellow card just to bruise your reputation—I've got your back. Consider me ready to testify.

Red herring.

Unfortunately, I went ahead and scrubbed those posts of yours where you were being incredibly crude, so I guess I’ll just have to defend myself with silence.

I’m not even sure how to frame this. I know I have a habit of using certain blunt, borderline rude expressions sometimes—I'll admit that much—but there’s absolutely no excuse for it. It doesn't justify anything.

Joy doesn't owe you an explanation for anything other than why you got a card. Since you clearly ignored the rules, she probably figured there was no point in repeating herself.

Red herring.

William Bennett53 said:Anyone on Reddit can sue whoever they want, but that’s between two private individuals. It has nothing to do with the rest of us here. I’m asking that people stop bringing this up, and more importantly, please stop using the threat of lawsuits against others on this platform.

Threats? Seriously?

Should I hire a translator just so you people would stop throwing up red herrings?

Didn't I just clarify that we aren't talking about any lawsuits in this thread?

Let me get ahead of this and clarify what I mean by a red herring:

The red herring is one of those classic moves you see all the time. It’s an informal fallacy where someone basically takes what their opponent said, twists it into a ridiculous caricature, and then attacks that fake version instead of the actual point. For this trick to actually work, though, you need an audience that doesn't know any better—people who haven't heard the real argument and are happy to believe the distorted version being served up.

The classic "red herring" tactic works like a magic trick. It gives you this fake sense of victory, making it look like you’ve totally dismantled someone's point when, in reality, you just swapped their actual argument for a much weaker, distorted version. You essentially build a dummy version of their position—kind of like setting up a target in a shooting range that isn't actually the person standing in front of you—and then you take all your shots at that fake target instead of addressing what they actually said. It’s a way to claim a win without ever stepping into the ring for the real fight.

Is there anyone here with decent vision, or maybe just some working contacts or glasses, who can give me a straight answer without trolling me?

I think I made myself clear enough when I started this thread. This isn't about filing a lawsuit or anything dramatic; it’s simply about your lack of competence in handling moderator duties. It's for that exact same reason I asked for a performance review regarding how Blake handles things as a supermod.

And please, stop throwing up straw man arguments. I have zero interest in debating your logical fallacies.

The fact that I still haven't received an apology—instead, I got a pretty arrogant and intellectually dishonest response, despite it being obvious that Emily Patel70 was in the wrong—only reinforces everything I laid out in the introduction of this topic.

I noticed a post by redbear2 regarding appeals against moderation actions, specifically contesting a strike issued by moderator Eowyn FTW. It brought to mind a certain incident involving this particular moderator—an issue I raised once before, which was never addressed, nor were any consequences handed out. To be clear, I am still waiting for an answer.

So, I filed an appeal for the strike. It wasn't granted, but that’s beside the point here. What caught my eye during that process was this:

Eowyn FTW said:...

Besides, you already picked up a strike yesterday because you were commenting on moderation in a thread where that isn't allowed. And today, you're doing it again. I already sent you a DM saying there weren't that many warnings and that you shouldn't be going off-topic to critique how things are run, so I would just give you a warning. The way it looks, I can only assume you came here specifically to troll and provoke.

Basically, this is a snippet where the moderator admits she would have only given me a warning if I hadn't supposedly received a strike the day before for critiquing moderation in the wrong thread. Based on that assumption, she concluded I was nothing more than a deliberate troll.

Here is the problem: I never actually received that previous strike for commenting on moderation in the wrong thread.

It’s a simple thing to verify. Not just for the mods, but for any regular user who has access to my history. To avoid any confusion, I’ll back this up with screenshots.

A screenshot confirming the date and the content of the aforementioned post by Eowyn FTW, in which she knowingly presents falsehoods about me to discredit me and justify the strike I appealed:



A screenshot proving that the strike she’s referring to never happened:



I immediately asked for an explanation for this behavior and requested a review from the supermoderator, but I didn't get an explanation from the moderator in question or from supermoderator bliss. In fact, I was simply ignored by both sides, and the question remains unanswered to this day. This is my final inquiry directed to bliss.

After that, they stopped responding to my inquiries entirely.

I’ll quote the relevant section of the U.S. Penal Code:

Defamation
Section 149.
(1) Anyone who, in the presence of others, makes or delivers a false statement of fact concerning another person that could harm their honor or reputation, knowing it to be untrue,

shall be punished by a fine of up to three hundred sixty daily fines.

(2) Anyone who commits an act under paragraph 1 of this section via the press, radio, television, computer systems, or networks, at a public gathering, or by any other means whereby it becomes accessible to a larger number of people,

shall be punished by a fine of up to five hundred daily fines.

U.S. Federal Law, Section 149.

I am asking, finally, for an explanation, and I am demanding that the moderator be stripped of her position.Eowyn FTW doesn't have the option to reaffirm. I also think we really need to take a hard look at the performance of supermoderator bliss. It feels like she made a conscious choice to look the other way during this whole situation.

I’d love to hear what Nica and Anderlon have to say about this; honestly, I think they both have some skin in the game here.

I honestly feel like a good chunk of the moderators could stand to learn what an ad hominem attack actually is, along with a few other concepts they constantly throw at users. No offense intended toward the mod team, but some of them seem to be flying blind and making calls without really knowing the rules.

It’s because they lack any real backbone.

So how is he supposed to shop if he actually types something in? 😳

hollowpuma762 said:Yeah. Exactly.
Two, three, four... it’s just a sequence. A pattern. Nothing more.

Fair enough. Makes sense.

The first part makes sense to me—it’s all about where that spark comes from. Honestly, everyone's triggers are different, though. It's all over the place.

Look, when it comes to how focus actually works—I mean really works—it’s not just about staring at one tiny little thing. The human mind, even when you're just sitting there in your apartment, doesn't just lock onto a single point like some laser. It's more complex than that. You pick a field, a general area of interest, and then your brain starts grabbing all the related factors and surrounding elements within that space. It's an entire cluster of things, not just one isolated piece.

That graph you pointed out? It’s a classic example of discovering warm water—you know, that typical Western mindset where we act like we've stumbled onto some groundbreaking revelation. The data points on there are really just different slices of basic, everyday human existence. You can bet your life that if they actually tried to be thorough, the graph would also have to include things like cooking dinner, brushing your teeth, taking a dump, waiting in line at CVS, or picking your nose. It’s all just the same mundane stuff.

Look, the graph is just pointing out the obvious: ideas can "show up"—you know, like they're being reflected by some active, receptive Universal Mind—at pretty much any random moment. Physical action is stuck right here in reality, but thoughts? Thoughts can be anywhere. Honestly, why even bother with a specific survey? It feels totally redundant.

If we had only been looking at truck drivers, most of that idea-generation chart would just be one giant slice labeled "driving a rig." And you know exactly how it would go down. Some local "expert" would pop up on a late-night talk show, acting all enthusiastic, theorizing that gripping a massive steering wheel somehow jumpstarts brain circulation—all while conveniently pitching some fancy new tablet to the audience as the ultimate tool for boosting creativity.

Honestly? My advice is to stop taking most Western polls seriously. Seriously. Just don't.
Aside from the stuff they spoon-feed you through the mainstream media just to keep the masses under control...

Oh, for sure. I meant to mention that I don't take it too seriously; I see it more as a general indicator of what I'm talking about.

I agree with the rest of your points. The whole point here was to clarify how ideas just "happen," rather than linking them to some magical transmitter beaming information directly into our brains.

It’s starting. Asks:
Quote:
Look at Stephen Hawking. He’s the living proof of what raw, pure talent in physics actually looks like.
Then probability stepped in and ruined everything. It was like God rolled the dice ten times in a row and they all came up wrong.
When it came to raw intellectual horsepower, Hawking was basically rolling nothing but fives and sixes on the dice.
When it came to his health, he was basically looking at a solid number one or two on the scale. No real issues there. 😲

And what exactly does that prove?

Michael Gonzalez77 said:That’s clear enough, but it doesn't do a single thing to address anyone else's problems.

"Quote:"

Success is usually just whatever happens to be trendy at the moment. It’s about what looks desirable right now, which doesn't mean it's actually useful or even true. On a personal level, it really just comes down to your own psychological foundation—whether the work you're doing actually matters to the world, or if it's just an illusion, which, let's face it, is how most people play it.

From where I'm sitting, this just looks like your specific perspective—driven by those particular motives you mentioned earlier—that led you to jump into this thread.

It sounds like you either knew him personally, which would explain why you're so certain, or you’re an expert in his field calling him out for being unstable—if we're being polite about it—or just plain eccentric.

The "otherworldly" side of things is just a fundamental part of human consciousness—it’s what happens when we hit the ceiling of our own intellect and realize how limited our reasoning actually is. And let's be clear: Tesla didn't just dream this up out of thin air.

It’s not just about spinning your wheels in place—that’s exactly why we’re even having this conversation. You can't get there through sheer willpower alone. Real breakthroughs happen when consciousness transcends that mental "cage." Think about all those massive scientific leaps made before we even had the tools to measure them. Those weren't products of trial and error or brute-force logic; they were moments of pure, intuitive insight. It’s like a meditative state where the brain finally stops grinding away at the noise, allowing information to flow directly into your awareness. It’s an internal vision, almost spatial, triggered by whatever you're deeply focused on.

Here’s the thing: we don't actually "invent" the principles of nature inside our heads. Those laws aren't just figments of our imagination; they are the active forces driving everything we see in reality. Our brains aren't capable of pure fantasy. Think of the brain not as a creative engine, but as an operational hub for thought within consciousness. It acts as a central station for processing conclusions and storing memory, but the brain itself isn't doing the thinking. Instead, it's consciousness that does the heavy lifting, taking in inputs not just through our five senses, but through deeper layers of the nervous system that operate far beneath our conscious awareness.

Because of how my nervous system is wired, I’ve been having precognitive dreams for years. My intuition isn't some mystical superpower; it’s actually just a byproduct of how I live. For the last 20 years, I’ve made it my life's work to stay balanced. I’m living proof that if you actually put in the effort, you can achieve incredible mental and physical health, total stability, and a perfectly tuned nervous system. Because I’ve cultivated that harmony, my brain is sensitive enough to pick up on subtle impulses that most people completely miss. I become aware of things happening around me that aren't tied to my five senses or whatever task is currently occupying my conscious mind.

Most people miss out on their full potential, even though they have everything it takes to reach it. It’s a shame, really. The reason is simple: they're too distracted by the noise of life. They scatter their mental and physical energy trying to chase every passing whim and unfulfilled desire. But the biggest drain is how people handle psychological hurdles—what most call "problems." Instead of facing them, people try to run away from these emotional states. This avoidance just fuels more negative thoughts and toxic mental loops, which only deepens the struggle. It becomes a vicious cycle where avoiding the issue actually creates more real-world consequences, eventually leading to chronic health issues down the road. It’s like trying to fix a leak by covering the floor with towels instead of just tightening the valve.

For enlightened people, this carries a lot more weight. But when you deal with those rare, brilliant minds who have reached that level? You start seeing actual "miracles"—not in some mystical sense, but in the way they simply perceive and process reality itself.

Exactly. We don't actually interact with nature itself; we just deal with our own mental constructs of it. It’s the same issue when we fall into the trap of thinking our personal experience is the only ultimate truth. That whole cycle of a deterministic mind—believing something is impossible simply because we can't conceive of it—is a fiction. And honestly, that kind of mental rigidity is exactly what trips people up and keeps them from functioning properly.

If I claim to have certain abilities that almost nobody in my immediate circle possesses, people usually jump to one of four conclusions: I’m crazy, I’m abnormal, I’m making it up, or I’m delusional. But honestly? That kind of logic is just a mental trap—a fiction built on over-relying on theoretical determinism. At the end of the day, it isn't really about whether you believe me or not; there's no real point in arguing over belief. It all comes down to a simple assumption: deciding whether something is actually possible or if it's fundamentally impossible.

Look, I know this works because I’ve lived it. Meanwhile, someone else isn't just guessing—they're flat-out claiming it's impossible based on a total misconception. I'm not sure if you follow my logic here, but it's essentially a mental loop in that direction.

Insights regarding the fundamental principles of existence are much more likely to be found in spiritual literature than in science. In the classic sense of the conventional materialist paradigm, science doesn't just fail to provide answers—it often offers incredibly narrow insights limited strictly by its own methodology and subject matter (matter itself). When science does offer hypotheses, they are merely tailored to that restricted scope, which practically leads people straight into error. If you're actually interested in this, I can point you toward some resources.

Sorry, there's just too much aimless noise here for me to bother responding. No offense intended, but if you can't stick to the point instead of constantly turning everything into a sermon and wandering off into the fog, I don't see much point in debating you.

hollowpuma762 said:If they’re a byproduct of thinking, then they aren't just "happening" on their own.

They don't just pop out of thin air. What's actually happening is that consciousness acts as a sort of passive receiver, tuned up to gather them, allowing the shape of the idea to reflect itself within the mind of the thinker.

The brain is just a tool.

For the "thinker" (the one actually wielding the tool), you need:

- A foundation (raw talent, innate stuff)
- The grind of optimizing that talent and sharpening mental tools
- Mastery over mental processes
- A specific state of consciousness that allows an idea to reflect onto the rational level

This can happen under any circumstances—whether you're actively working at it or just drifting through some mindless, repetitive task. The triggers are all over the place.

If I recall correctly, I already posted this. Self-explanatory. "Quotes."

It’s also possible that those big, innovative breakthroughs don't actually come from staring intensely at a problem. Sometimes, you just end up thinking about two completely unrelated things, and your subconscious finds a way to bridge the gap between them—even if you weren't trying to connect the dots consciously.

That’s exactly why I put them in quotes. They don't just spontaneously manifest out of thin air. My point is that they rarely stem from some intense, conscious grind or hyper-focusing on a single problem. Instead, they hit you like those sudden "lightbulb" moments—seemingly appearing from absolutely nowhere.

The brain is just a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thinkers need:

The foundation—that raw, innate talent you're born with.
It’s all about that grind—really digging into talent optimization and sharpening those mental tools.
Mastering your own mental processes.
A generated state of consciousness is basically just an idea waiting to be chewed on by a rational mind.

Alright.

It happens under any circumstances—whether through intentional effort or just during other automated, mindless tasks. The triggers vary.

I never claimed you can't find innovative ideas by focusing on problem-solving. I’m just saying the brain often hits those solutions precisely when it *isn't* focused. It’s because the focus isn't there that you can actually bridge the gap between seemingly unrelated things. Focus implies looking in one direction, in a straight line.

steelmarlin19 said:The thing is, you can overthink something forever and still come up totally empty-handed.

Tesla actually believed that all ideas already exist out there—that we aren't inventing them, we're just uncovering things that were discovered long ago.

If that’s true, then there has to be a reason WHY certain people just "get" these ideas (the ones we call geniuses) while everyone else is left in the dark. It makes perfect sense! ☕

Well, Tesla was right: everything we discover must already exist. You’re just misinterpreting him; try taking his words a bit more literally and rationally. To find a shipwreck at the bottom of the ocean, the ship has to actually be down there. Your belief in its existence doesn't change anything. What Tesla meant is that prior to any discovery, the possibility of that discovery always existed.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:It’s pretty clear that this observation comes from an internal drive to be heard.

I honestly don't know what you consider "success" or what criteria you're using, so I can't really wrap my head around why you're treating other people's comments as evidence to prove they're wrong. It seems like we're talking about two completely different things here.

From what I've gathered by reading this thread and the various replies, nobody is actually trying to dismiss personal effort. In fact, quite the opposite.

When it comes specifically to Nikola Tesla, he explained his own experience quite extensively.

My argument is that a genuine contribution to the advancement of the human race is directly linked to the onostran (which isn't some distant "somewhere else," but is inherently immanent—something Nikola Tesla himself confirmed regarding his own experience).

Ideas aren't just figments of our imagination or inventions of the human mind. They are fundamental principles that exist and are simply discovered. This discovery doesn't happen through the mental process of conceptualizing reality through thought; rather, these truths are perceived through a process of clearing the mind—because those ideas aren't even accessible through standard thought processes.

This isn't about crediting "effort" to anyone or anything. It's about describing a natural phenomenon. Anything else is just the classic human fiction regarding what reality actually is (an illusion).

Exactly. If it didn't, they would have just kept it to themselves.

I don't really know what constitutes success in your eyes—what the criteria even are—so I can't quite grasp why you're using other people's comments as a benchmark, trying to turn them into proof that they're wrong by reflecting their own logic back at them. It seems like we're talking about two different things here.

I don't see how that matters. Whatever someone manages to achieve, it's their achievement. Period.

From what I can gather from this thread and the other comments, nobody is actually suggesting that personal effort is being undervalued. Quite the opposite.

You don't need to say it outright. We're talking about rationalizing one's own failures.

On the other hand, when looking specifically at Tesla, he explained his experience quite broadly himself.

Tesla wasn't exactly a saint, especially during the later stages of his life.

My argument is that a true contribution to the advancement of the human race is directly linked to the otherworldly (which isn't some distant realm, but an immanent entity, something Tesla himself confirmed).

Why bother with that side of things if it doesn't impact the human race?

Ideas aren't mere inventions or products of human imagination. They are principles that exist and are simply rediscovered. They aren't uncovered through the mental process of conceptualizing reality with thought, but rather through the process of clearing the mind—because thoughts alone wouldn't grant access to them.

I don't follow. Even if the mind is cleared, if something isn't accessible to it, it can't be known.

This isn't about attributing "effort" to someone or something; it's a natural phenomenon. Anything else is just the classic human fiction regarding what reality actually is (an illusion).

A natural phenomenon?

So the stuff you're claiming is reality isn't a fiction? How does that work? Are you the chosen one sent to tell everyone else the truth about the state of things?

steelmarlin19 said:Look, you can influence certain things, but you have zero control over the MAJORITY of them.

If you take two people with the exact same talent, obviously the one who puts in the work—practicing, studying, grinding—is going to blow the lazy one out of the water.

But raw talent itself? That doesn't come from hard work—you're born with it, period. No amount of effort can change that.

For example, you can't just decide to become Nikola Tesla, the genius inventor, simply by working harder or studying more. To be a Nikola Tesla, you basically just have to be BORN that way. And whether someone is born with that spark is something neither the person nor their parents decide—it's up to a higher power.

Even Nikola Tesla himself admitted that none of his inventions were truly "his"—he claimed they all came to him as "visions" and "sketches" that just sort of "appeared." So, WHO sent those sketches to Nikola Tesla? They didn't exactly mail themselves, right? Just something to think about. Cheers!

Fair enough.

If you take two people with identical talent, the one who puts in the work—the one who grinds, studies, and actually tries to improve—is obviously going to outpace the lazy one who refuses to grow.

Okay.

But raw talent itself isn't something you earn through effort. You're born with it. No amount of hard work changes that fact.

Show me the proof.

Look at it this way: you can't just work your way into being Nikola Tesla. You can't become a genius inventor just by studying harder. You either have it or you don't. And nobody decides that—not the individual, not the parents. It’s decided by a higher power.

I didn't realize biology was considered a "higher power." People tend to wrap mysteries in mysticism whenever they don't understand how something works.

Even Tesla admitted his inventions weren't really "his." He claimed he received them as visions and sketches that just appeared to him. Who sent those sketches to Tesla? They didn't exactly mail themselves, did they? Just a thought. Cheers.

I've read theories suggesting that brilliant, innovative ideas often seem to arrive "out of nowhere." But really, it's just the byproduct of deep, conscious thought. What the brain needs is time and the right environment to let the subconscious bridge gaps between seemingly unrelated concepts. That's when the most creative solutions surface. Usually, it happens during mindless tasks like showering or taking a walk. When you focus too intensely on a single point, you actually block those connections. That's why the "lightbulb moment" usually hits you while you're sitting in a bathroom stall.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:Are you really feeling that inadequate? Is that why you need to play amateur psychologist and tear others down on this forum just to soothe your own conscience? That’s a pretty strange impulse to have...

Not quite. I’m just making an observation.

I don't see any other reason why people would credit success to some imaginary entity or the "chosen one" narrative.

My point is that someone's success belongs to them—it's their own doing, not the result of some higher power picking them out of a crowd. On the flip side, a lot of people in this thread try to diminish what people have actually achieved by chalking it up to fate, destiny, or whatever else they want to call it.

"He isn't special because of his hard work; he was just chosen. If he had picked me, I'd be special too." Give me a break. 👏

🤦

Take all the credit away from people for what they actually achieved and just hand it over to some higher power.

I guess that gives you a convenient way to justify your own failures. :klap:

casualtiger2 said:Personally, I think posts like this are just pure filler.

All right.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:It really just comes down to finding the right priest. Personally, I used to prefer going to Father Bolobanić—he was an exorcist, you know? And judging by the chatter, people find Father Stojić’s services pretty captivating too. 😲😂 😲

Well, this guy isn't one of them.
http://www.nytimes.com/article/man-moves-to-tiny-cabin

LEFT DUBAI TO SETTLE IN KOKOCAK
He spent his life in seven-star hotels, handed over a multi-million dollar company to a friend, and decided to move into a tiny shack!

But the point is, he isn't trying to play the guru role at all.

And most importantly, he clearly hasn't lost his edge. But his followers? They seem to be missing something similar:
http://wsj.com/articles/lifestyle-trends

I was reading up on that guy recently. I’m fairly certain he’s got enough insurance in place just in case he changes his mind and decides to go back to his old ways, but honestly, it probably doesn't even matter in the long run.

In my book, spiritual gurus and self-help experts are nothing more than glorified con artists. 🤷

rustydrifter10 said:Edit: And let’s not be rude here. We have no intention of engaging with people on this platform who can't manage to write two decent posts.

So, does that mean you won't bother responding if someone is arrogant or blunt, even if they actually have a point and provide links to back it up? Does being rude count as breaking the rules? It doesn't. So, I’m honestly struggling to see where you're getting the nerve to say that.

More to the point: if someone is actually right and pointing out a legitimate issue, but gets ignored just because their delivery was a bit rough, then you're the ones failing at your job. In that scenario, you'd basically be doing a disservice to Reddit, wouldn't you?

I realize the original poster didn't include any links, so I don't know if they're actually correct, but I'm just asking for the sake of clarity.