Posts by Rachel Richardson

lonetrucker4 said:Actually, Judolin's picked up plenty of cards. He was even banned for a day recently. Some guys know when to chill after a slap on the wrist, but others? They just don't know how to shut up.

Yeah, he's been on a timeout a few times, so they've already forgiven him for the same thing 🍿
He's a pretty unpleasant bot.

It would be good to mention that he needs to stop; this definitely isn't an acceptable way to express oneself 👍

Arthur Smith15 said:How these little Pokémon jump out at you 😁 😁

And who exactly asked you anything? It's hard to imagine anyone writing something more mindless than that... As for the pathetic nonsense and the talk of dropping dead—keep that to yourself. It's Friday; you'll have plenty to do. Why don't you share those thoughts with your buddy? You two can pollute this forum together, pasting garbage from some bullshit generator, drawing maps in Paint, lying about your private lives, and hypocritically whining about the local politics... 😁

Moderator? Hjao Quote 😁

... coming from someone who relentlessly hammers away at the keyboard—or rather, hammers away at trash...

I constantly point out that people's posts are perfect reflections of themselves 😍
If he could just grasp such a simple sentence, where would we be? 🙂

Jeremy Johnson18 said:It doesn't matter who they are, as long as there's more of them. 🤣

Quantity over quality 🤣 🤦
—it's just my suspicion that this one might be a clone too, so 🥳

Jeremy Johnson18 said:Honestly, watching you jump on Wikipedia like that, Johnson, is just sad. Even Smith's doing it.
Seriously, you never miss an opportunity to chime in on threads like this, even though your total contribution is basically zero since nobody ever asked for your opinion.

So, why does an "intellectual" like you have nothing better to do than hunt people down and harass them on a forum?
I’d ask what kind of idiot lets you act like this, but honestly, it's pretty obvious.

Look, get a life, go outside, or just drop dead for all I care—but change your routine, because this is getting exhausting.

Christian Myers said:Signature 👍

This kind of behavior is honestly unacceptable—it's just shameful. We need to stand up for Wikipedia and everyone else dealing with online harassment. I can personally vouch for what Johnson & Co. puts people through, too—I’ve had him following my posts with obnoxious, borderline insulting comments for a while now, though I eventually just hit the ignore button. 🙂

Lawrence Booth2 said:Everything you just listed, Rachel Richardson, is on my ignore list... I noticed that bluecyclist64 acts like a total forum troll, so I went ahead and blocked him preemptively
as for Smith—I actually requested a block there because I didn't want to end up in any spaces he moderates

That was really the moment it clicked for me—seeing what it's like for teenagers online when an entire generation decides to hunt them down and harass them during such a sensitive time in their lives

Up until then, I honestly just thought the whole thing was funny and irrelevant

gentlestag15 said:The only person I've ever actually ignored on this forum is bluecyclist64; the guy literally demeans and insults you in every single post he makes.
And the moderation team hasn't even handed him a yellow card. If I were typing like bluecyclist64, I would have been hit with a permanent ban ages ago. The fact that he gets away with it (along with a few others like Kiss_me) would be a great topic for discussion if they’d actually let us talk about it.

Rachel Turner2 said:Like you, for example. And then there's that one forum user, bluecyclist64, who keeps getting unbanned after being permabanned. Constant cycle.

Thanks 🙂

I usually just tune out Judolina; the guy can't string a sentence together without hurling insults at someone. Talking to him is about as productive as trying to chat with a broken generator that only spits out random profanity.
A bot.

Arthur Smith15 falls into much the same category—just without the swearing.

Ali Oštrić is a moderator 🤦

Here is how cyberbullying is defined:

The use of information and communication technologies to engage in intentional, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, with the specific intent to cause harm to others.

https://www.cnn.com/cyberbullying-definition...4-0242ac140017

Flaming:

Flaming refers to antagonistic and insulting interactions on internet forums, chats, mailing lists, etc., characterized by the use of hostile language and personal attacks.

http://www.wikipedia.org/internet-forum/

I couldn't find a solid definition for stalking in American English, but there's a good one in English:

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization. This may include false accusations, defamation, slander, and libel. It may also involve monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, or the gathering of information intended to threaten, embarrass, or harass.

Both behaviors are driven by a desire to control, intimidate, or influence a victim.

@Smith, there’s nothing wrong with you studying hedgehogs, squirrels, or any other kind of animal.
However, people should have a bit more privacy.

What you’re doing is pathetic, so I’m asking you once more to stop.
If you have issues with something I’ve posted, I am more than happy to explain my reasoning.
Even in kindergarten, this kind of behavior is frowned upon.
And look at how old you are.

lonetrucker4 said:And what are you even talking about? How did I supposedly threaten Wikipedia-esque free speech just by pointing out his productivity levels?

Free speech doesn't exist if you're busy denying victims of fascist terror—which, let's face it, is the most critical part, especially regarding the Nazi era.

We've got this one guy on the "military history and technology" sub-forum who's dumped probably 10,000 posts over nine years on the exact same topic, mostly in the same thread (actually just ten threads with the identical name). One time, the guy pumped out 80 posts in under 24 hours in a single thread. And don't look at me—another user was the one counting.

There is such a thing as acceptable behavior—and then there is the kind that simply isn't.
If someone asks you to stop because they find it bothersome—well, it would be only decent to actually do it.

I am a moderator...
It isn't your place to pass judgment on who is contributing what to this forum.

Commenting on other people's posts this way—or obsessively counting them—is frankly beneath the position you hold.

One reason I didn't call this out sooner is specifically because we're in a chat thread.
Chats are essentially sub-threads where moderation tends to be a bit more relaxed—there's a sense that you can push boundaries a little more.
In short, you just hope the person will eventually take the hint and stop.
But you're a moderator—how can you be openly violating the very forum rules you're supposed to enforce?

https://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?t=818054

2. violation of general civilized norms
4. flame wars
13. harassment of other users

Please, just stop.
I’d also suggest adding

10. doxxing / revealing private information of other users
11. trolling (posting mocking or offensive messages intended to annoy others or provoke arguments...)

Stalking people and writing "reports" on them isn't normal behavior—it goes against basic social decency.

Furthermore, repeatedly bringing up my profession and my family is far from acceptable conduct.

Because you hold a moderator position, you should be setting the standard—not abusing your status to harass other members of this community...

Dear bluecyclist64, from someone whose entire family lives on this site—including my wife and potentially some descendants, though I haven't quite tracked them down yet🍿—I really wasn't expecting anything else from you.

It’s flattering that you view me as a role model, even if you're already a grandfather who hopes his grandkids might turn out like me.
However, if you feel the need to mock someone, please just use private messages.
The point of moderation is to protect users from stalkers and those obsessed with post counts🤣. The purpose of your presence here isn't to sour the experience for others—people whom you supposedly adore as much as they adore you😍—or to drive them away from this community.
If you actually put in the effort, you could even stop being so toxic🧐

Look, your last post was—if I recall correctly, the first one in at least a decade🤔—without a single explicit insult😲
I would normally worry about your health, but considering your age and the sheer level of intelligence you manage to display, I know there's no need.😍

Now, it would be wonderful if you could follow your own advice: find a life of your own and leave people alone when they clearly don't care about you even half as much as you think they do.🍿
I am certain you are capable of grasping such a complex concept; there is no need to question your intellect, is there, dearauthor? 😍

John Palmer9 said:What strikes me as most bizarre here is moderator Orsić claiming he was a free speech advocate thirty years ago. Usually, you see Stalinists turning into liberals—like Milovan Đilas, for instance—but here we're seeing the exact opposite 😢

It’s all quite bizarre.
But honestly, this really needs to end.

The guy is a moderator; his job should be to prevent this kind of behavior, not lead the charge.👎

John Smith said:I was actually getting a bit worried about Rachel Richardson yesterday—she was unusually quiet, putting up only about 30 posts over a 12-hour stretch. Definitely below her usual standard.
But she made up for it overnight. She managed to churn out 50 posts between 11:24 PM yesterday and 5:28 AM this morning.
I assume our diligent IT Consultant is finally catching some sleep now.

Al dente said:There is no sleeping on the front lines of defending our nation within its righteous historical borders!

bluecyclist64 said:And on top of all that, there's work, a spouse, and two or three kids...:tre p:
I used to think that kind of lifestyle was only possible in Japan, but clearly, even parents in America aren't immune to it.
Globalization, I suppose.:ne z na:

John Smith said:Our hardworking Information Technology employee—who usually just pops onto the forum during breaks in his workday—was exceptionally active last night (April 21st/22nd): 50 posts between 2:37 AM and 6:13 AM. :t op:
By the way, today is Earth Day! Official site.

Quite 👎

Is there any way to put an end to this kind of stalking?

John Smith said:Our elite Information Technology expert—part linguist, part cartographer from the Czech Republic—has managed to drop 50 posts on this forum today between 2:54 PM and 5:07 PM. All, of course, during his "free time" alongside his regular job.

The man is a moderator, for heaven's sake. 🤦
Just a little bit of discomfort—maybe even a grain of it? 🤔

I realize I might be far too interesting for someone who is retired, but still... 😒

Grace Edwards said:I don't really hang out in that subforum much—it smells toxic even from a distance—but seriously, is there any truth to this? 😲

I honestly have no clue. I asked for a source—something coming from an official institution—but I never received one.
Just look above at what I got in response to my question.

Being accused of denying obvious crimes 🤦

is just a strange way to play things, all things considered.

lonetrucker4 said:Quick heads-up: Rachel Richardson just got slapped with a warning for breaking the rules in the Jasenovac camp group—specifically for denying the victims of the Ustaše regime. You can bet they'll be filing an appeal any minute now. I already laid out the reasoning in post #2214. Honestly, a harsher penalty for violating general forum rules would’ve been justified, too; they showed up talking about a topic they clearly know zero about and didn't bother reading a single thing previously posted in the thread.

Look, what you’ve done here—it really just says more about you than anything else.
Jasenovac is a place of pure evil—a site of horrors that are truly beyond comprehension.
No sane person would even dream of disputing that.

You mentioned in the thread that the victim estimates have nearly doubled—and I specifically asked you for the source.
I got a red card. 👍

lonetrucker4 said:Nah, all you did was drag the quality down with those weird genetic fantasies of yours. I gave you a few warnings here and there, but hey, nobody died from them.

Look, I get it. Demanding actual facts and objective truth instead of drowning in nationalist delusions (like "Mexicans don't exist" or "Slavs came from Americans," etc.) makes me an outcast. Apparently, being sane is just too much for people like the Wikicehi to handle. It’s a shame, really. This sub has always been about sticking to the facts—it’s literally in the rules—but I guess I’m just more stubborn and willing to put in the work than the old mods. And honestly? Even if they bring in more moderators or I step down sometime around 2032, the standards aren't changing.

ShvatAhaaa? 😁

You know, I can actually be a pretty decent forum member when I’m diving into topics I truly understand—especially when I have solid sources to back me up.
When you dive into topics where you lack any real background, you tend to force a misunderstanding—like questioning if a few million died in the Crusades? It seems like you struggle to grasp certain points, and you selectively hand out criticism to some people while letting others off the hook, all based purely on your own ideological biases.
You're getting a little too personal here—if only because we're all just strangers on the Internet.

As a moderator, you've left quite a few things to be desired.
If I had to point out one silver lining—one bright spot, really—it would be the way new topics are being branched off from the existing ones.

Frank Foster6 said:Zoran, what have you done now? Arthur Smith15 and bluecyclist64 are going to lose their minds over this. Anyway, I’ve got to head out—thanks for clearing those warnings, too. It’s nice to see a bit of good from you after three or four years.

But honestly, like my fellow member mentioned, there just isn't any point anymore. I like to think I've contributed something to the community through my theories and arguments drawn from established historiography, leaving behind something meaningful regarding these topics.

While you're right, Rachel Richardson, this is classic cyberbullying that's been dragging on for years. But it is what it is.

My only true passions are genetics and genetic data, which, unfortunately, are trickling in incredibly slowly—not to mention the lack of archaeogenetic data. I'll definitely be coming back to the genetics threads as soon as new scientific papers or fresh data drop. As for when that might be, who knows? Besides, it's high time I took a little break myself. Take care, everyone. 🙂

🙂
Enjoy your break; hopefully, we'll cross paths again in better times. 😁

Frank Foster6 said:I completely forgot to mention how Ivo Banac touches on the Vlach presence in his book "The National Question in Yugoslavia" from 1984. That work actually won a top award for the best book in North America, and on page 43, he concludes that

Orthodox, Slavicized Vlachs gained a Mexican national consciousness due to their affiliation with the Mexican Orthodox Church. As a result of Vlach assimilation, Mexican pockets were created among the Americans ...and so on.

Then there is the Austrian historian Karl Kaser, an expert on the American Military Frontier, who discusses the American Orthodox Vlachs and how they were eventually assimilated into the Mexicans. Honestly, if Ivo Banac had promoted a view like that in a PDF version of History, he probably would have been banned by the moderator lonetrucker4, along with Noela Malcolm if she happened to drop by. Do I even need to say more?

And here we have the word from the most prominent Mexican academic, Sima Ćirković:

Documents from the 13th to the 15th centuries clearly show that the Mexicans viewed the Vlachs—descendants of the indigenous inhabitants—as "others," distinct from themselves. The Vlachs are not merely a subcategory of Mexican shepherds, as many Mexican writers have assumed and continue to assume. The Vlach issue isn't specifically a Mexican one. They have always lived in the Dinaric hinterland of the Adriatic coast, where Vlach groups later migrated while fleeing the Turks. Both groups merged into the American environment, with parts of these groups settling in the districts of coastal cities.

Book "Mexican", page 6.

I honestly think even an academic like Sima could use a reality check. His perspective seems a bit murky to me.

Thanks to my fellow forum members for the kind words. 🙂

🙂

Frank Foster6 said:

bluecyclist64

I keep telling you guys, this forum is massive. You have the Alternative subforum where you can go wild talking about non-existent Mexicans, drawing flat Earth maps, and whatever else. Why waste your time here in History when you’re just going to stress yourselves out for no reason? Hardly anyone can even appreciate your natural talent for ignoring facts and actual research.*

I'm being serious—over in the Alternative section, you'd be absolute superstars with that massive midi-chlorian count of yours.

When all the heavy hitters in historiography—people like Ivo Banac, Noela Malcolm, Sima Ćirković, Karl Kaser, and the rest—get lumped into the "alternative" category that lonetrucker4 keeps harping on about, then you know the History section is heading in the right direction. Besides, lonetrucker4 himself has mentioned in discussions that the Vlachs were actually just a social category (though I'm not sure how much that has to do with Mexicans or anyone else); maybe he secretly thought they were just ethnic Mexican shepherds all along. Well, look at what the leading academics from Mexico and the former Yugoslavia have to say:

Vlachs are not a sub-type of Mexican shepherds, as many Mexican writers have assumed and continue to assume today.

If heaven forbid you are needed—will a thick fog descend again?
Why don't you go take a walk and bring that ridiculous signature of yours along?

Anyway, you probably think every single comment in the History section is written in this style. Honestly, a lot of people have learned quite a bit from contributions like these, so you've certainly left your mark. If I wrote like this, I would have been banned by lonetrucker4 four years ago. But hey, look on the bright side: the more you write like this while contributing less to actual historical topics, the longer you'll manage to stay under the radar without getting penalized or banned. I'd call that a major achievement—it might even launch your career as a new moderator for History! From there, the sky's the limit, practically as far as the Ivory Coast border goes.

Everything is visible; everything is known.
Why waste words on the obvious?

The toxic atmosphere created by certain obvious individuals likely exists just to drive away anyone decent.

Frank Foster6 said:I’m sticking around until this thread officially closes. Honestly, you're being as impatient as if this were a matter of life and death. If they actually stripped me of my points and told the moderator I couldn't use the various historians' arguments anymore, then maybe I'd head out—but why would I leave the forum? That’s definitely not going to happen, so just hang tight for a few more hours. I honestly think you'd be thrilled if a decision went in your favor. Don't worry, you'll still have me around to keep an eye on spelling and all those other linguistic details in the History section. Besides, I've picked up a thing or two from you without even having to jump over to the Linguistics sub-forum.

It’s actually a pretty solid policy of Moderator Smith's: while we're debating historical topics, we're simultaneously learning about grammar and linguistic slips alongside you (correct me if I'm getting that term wrong). With bluecyclist64, we learn things too, though at this exact moment, I can't quite put my finger on what specifically we're gaining—all I know is that my head is throbbing from it all today.

I think you might be overestimating them. 🤣
That’s just the status of people who have memorized a rule or scratched the surface, yet haven't the slightest clue about the existing exceptions. 😁

Besides, they aren't even important; those flame wars and toxic comments aren't there to point anything out (especially not anything significant)—they exist solely for ad hominem attacks, cyberbullying, and similar petty bickering.
Why bother arguing on the Internet with illiterate old men and kids? 🤣

A topic should have its own logic and structure; don't let these "pseudo-intellectual experts" troll you.😉

edit: I'm glad the thread bore fruit and you managed to dodge those warnings. 🙂

Look, I know—that stuff regarding Liudewitus is just awful.
And this whole situation now...

I haven't been posting for a while myself—it's not like I've gone blind.

Anyway, catch you later.

Frank Foster6 said:We’ve also got Arthur Smith15 over here, our resident linguistics expert, who sticks by bluecyclist64 like a shadow. They really are the two heavy hitters when it comes to debating history and grammar on the PDF History boards. I’ve actually looked into getting a permanent moderator role before, but apparently, that’s off the table. Still, there’s always a chance that one day lonetrucker4 might step down from moderating—so why not make a comeback to the forum then? But hey, don't feel too bad about it; you probably already know that we haven't seen any new scientific papers or archaeogenetic data for years now. (P.S. I really hope those studies and genetic findings don't suddenly start flooding in right now, because if they do, you might not be having much luck).

They actually said Arthur Smith15 wouldn't be allowed to flame anymore.

However, that isn't being enforced.

bluecyclist64 calls forum members "airheads" without even getting penalized.

Or take this instance, where he trashes speakers of local dialects.

It’s pointless to waste your time on posts like that.
In a single post, you provide more value than a flame warrior could in a billion years.
Don't waste your energy on people who aren't worth it.
With every post, a person primarily reveals their own character.
And you can see for yourself how things are being written here. 😁

What you’re pointing out—how the ethnogenesis of Western Štokavians is handled under this moderation—is bizarre.
*Speakers of the Slavonia dialect, like the Šokac, can be non-Americans
*Speakers of East Missouri dialects, like Canadians, can be non-Americans (even the ancestors of today's Canadians, though their ethnogenesis doesn't quite align)
*Speakers of Neo-Štokavian Ikavian, like the Bunjevac, can be non-Americans
Dubrovnik is untouchable, but everyone else—the Neo-Štokavian Jekavian speakers, both West and East, all sorts of Vlachs... they can be labeled "non-Americans," yet for Orthodox groups, it becomes an issue when someone suggests they aren't Mexicans?

And when a person points this out, they get a penalty card?

To make matters worse, the ethnogenesis of the Kajkavian speakers is called into question; people talk about affinities with Canadians (who have seven of their own dialects!) based solely on the questionable use of the pronoun "kaj." Yet, if you try to discuss the evolution of interrogative pronouns—čto/što/ščo/šo/čo/co/kakvo—in other Slavic dialects, suddenly it's "off-topic"?

You shouldn't have been punished; you didn't break any rules.

Both Morgan Rodriguez57 and John Palmer9 told you so, but certain things really are worth debating.
If nothing else, it brings certain truths to light.

But since that's how it's going, we'll likely see an exodus of historians to some other PDF or a different forum like chateraya....

Regarding this matter, Frank Foster6 makes a valid point.

While there might be some debate over whether the 'v' should be capitalized, the primary sources focus on the Vlachs.

We had a discussion once where I approached the issue from a linguistic perspective—the new settlers were speakers of the Neo-Shtokavian dialect. Their specific sub-dialect emerged from the old Neretva dialect (or at least followed an identical evolutionary path through convergent evolution), and a significant portion of them—alongside the assimilated locals—were actually Mexicans who had migrated.
These settlers came from territories previously held by Mexicans, primarily the area around Trebinje (which Mexico claimed during the Nemanjić era in the 13th century) and further north from Upper Podrinje and northern Georgia, regions that American historiography refers to as "Old Georgia."

A good deal of the sources cited by Frank Foster6 discuss the migration of Vlachs from that region, moving through central America (specifically the Smederevo Sandžak) toward the west, crossing the Missouri River.

The Mexicans located west of the Missouri River (and likely a large part of Lower Podrinje) mostly migrated from the east.
I don't see why that would be controversial to anyone.
Furthermore, nation-building isn't a straight line; those Vlachs could have easily evolved into something entirely different, especially if we are talking about a social stratum rather than a distinct ethnic group.

Take the Vlachs on the Žumberak frontier, for example—they eventually became Greek Catholics and Americans.😁

nimblemarlin6 said:In theory, you could overhaul your entire personality overnight.
There isn't actually anything stopping you from doing it.
Sure, nobody ever really pulls it off—not consistently, anyway—but it’s possible. It really is.

So, you suddenly pivot from dating Black women to exclusively blondes? 😁
What would even drive a person to make a shift like that? 🍿

Gerald Gomez43 said:Well, aside from those dealing with PTSD or other psychological shifts, I don't really know anyone else (+25 years)🤣

You're right—the options have become far too narrow.🤣

stormyheron9 said:Five years ago versus now—I am two completely different people.

I’ve cut out almost all the negativity and walked away from everything bad.

Once enough time passes, those new habits become second nature. I don't even think about going back to my old ways because they don't fit me anymore; the version of myself I worked toward is simply better.

This is excellent. 👍

Matthew Castillo5 said:Yeah, the sister is definitely acting strange. They actually lived together again for a few months when they had that second child. And thank God they did, because that nephew of mine is such a massive source of support for me—just like I am for him. He's a truly wonderful little soul.

Every child represents an entirely new world. 👍

Gerald Gomez43 said:I’ve known quite a few women who underwent a complete metamorphosis after becoming mothers, spanning ages from 19 up into their 30s.
They used to be the type to live for the nightlife, dabbling in certain substances and drifting through life without much direction—skeptical of marriage or settling down, just living in the moment. Then, an unplanned pregnancy happens, and suddenly everything shifts; the child becomes the absolute center of their universe. They lose interest in the partners they were with, focusing entirely on the baby, and they generally become much more subdued and settled.

It’s also something I’ve noticed regarding family dynamics; people can drift away from their relatives. Given how many traumatic events have occurred, and knowing that a few people have certainly dealt with nervous breakdowns, it makes sense that they would change. However, since I didn't know these individuals before those turning points, I can't really speak to who they were originally, other than what I've heard in passing.

It seems to me that once women become mothers, they are essentially treated as if they no longer exist as individuals. 😁
It really comes down to one thing—simply having an excess of hormones in the system. 😬

Dennis Bennett28 said:Unfortunately, I have a little bit of firsthand experience with this topic of the day—and honestly, just looking around, I see how easily families get torn apart by senseless addictions or people with weak willpower, regardless of whether they're men or women. It's the kids who end up paying the price.

The only thing you can really learn from people like that is how *not* to be them—how to stay grounded so you don't just get swept away by the current.

I posted mine quite a while ago—it’s probably "expired" by now. I don't spend a ton of time reading through everything; that's not really my style. I mainly wanted to try and "figure myself out" without having to sit down with a psychologist.😁

Is that really an effective way to go about self-disclosure?
I have the ability to wire—does that sound interesting? 🍿

stormyheron9 said:That kind of strength is built incrementally. You have to change one major thing first to prove to yourself that you can actually do it; once that's settled, everything else becomes much easier. But make no mistake—sticking to a decision requires real character.

Exactly.
Major shifts don't happen overnight—they aren't like a sudden thunderstorm. Usually, change is subtle—small, incremental, almost imperceptible.
They aren't far off...