Posts by Rachel Richardson

Carol Martinez94 said::ro fl:
It wasn't until I read her sadistic venting about that individual on LinkedIn that I truly understood what was happening here. This place is even creepier than I initially suspected. :nog ica:

And there lies the core issue.
Look, I honestly thought you were a reasonable person.
Do you really believe it’s acceptable to speak about someone in the third person—to dissect them like this?
Simply because you disagree with her on certain topics?
If you find yourself at odds with someone over an idea, does it necessitate a blood feud?
Is there no middle ground here—no basic respect for a fellow speaker?
No actual discussion?
Are you just going to Copy Trump? 😬

@Zeko, wow. Just... wow.
Does the mere fact that someone writes in a way you dislike—their tone, their style—mean you immediately go for the jugular? Or start handing out labels like candy? 🤦

It is a deeper disappointment than the debate itself—it's the lack of decorum and the disregard for forum etiquette.
It seems that if you take a dislike to someone, your instinct is to try and erase them entirely—repeatedly, relentlessly, and without a second thought. It is pure ad hominem. 😲
You people are terrible. 😲

Joseph Bailey41 said:cool. Honestly, do you think I could build a chatbot based on my own posts here so I can finally retire? 🙂

I doubt it.
You’re far too sharp for some machine 😁

As for everything else—the internet is primarily for entertainment now; actual wisdom is becoming a lost art online. 🙂
Forums will likely vanish entirely, replaced by interactive memes of funny cats or something equally trivial.
Complete alienation. 🙂

Karen Chavez76 said:It's like being shocked when the internet's biggest troll starts a thread just to report everyone else for trolling. 😁
Don't worry—I'm done for now. Take care. 🙂

There is a subtle distinction between trolling and outright insults.

If you actually paid attention to the nuances, you'd see I'm not trolling.
Trolling isn't simply expressing an opinion you happen to dislike—nor is it communicating in a style you find unpleasant (especially when it doesn't even concern you).
The Chatting phase happened; that's a fact.
But regardless, I've thoroughly enjoyed myself. 👋

Noah Fowler3 said:It’s pretty obvious you haven't been around this forum long enough.

That kind of approach just looks pathetic.
Petty.
Whatever.

It’s quite fascinating how people resurface after all this time—usually on a completely unrelated thread—just to share some nostalgic memory about things that have long since vanished...

Thanks, Scott Cox56. I truly hope you find whatever it is you're looking for. 😁

Honestly? It really goes to show—you can be genuinely surprised by how much certain situations or even certain people can let you down. 👎

Matthew Wilson50 said:It’s fine that you want to help—I’ve already mentioned there's nothing wrong with that, and I respect the intent.
However—and this is the reality—whenever a "less serious" thread opens up on NASA or similar platforms (I mention NASA because that's where these things usually start), you are among the first in line to join the parade of pointless comments that offer zero value.
And, of course, there is some trolling within certain threads—but that wouldn't happen if the topic hadn't inspired a handful of you to stick around just to mock, joke, or follow a similar pattern of behavior.
Look, people can debate fiercely, or they can keep it relaxed; a discussion is meant to be a conversation among many people about the same subject from various perspectives—but that's beside the point...
My point was simply this: even when you have nothing intelligent to contribute, you still feel the need to comment. When you lack actual advice, you see certain forum members you're friendly with and you jump in regardless.
Once again, I don't care how many threads you comment on or how many posts you churn out daily—nor do I care whether you decide to stop doing what I described above. It's just that while scrolling through several pages to find a single comment that isn't from your small group is exhausting, at this rate, you'll eventually catch on... so, it's up to you.

This thread shouldn't actually be about me.
Your intentions are good and you want to help, which I respect.👍
The subject was supposed to be about a female user who is being abusive—unpunished, and entirely unrelated to me.
I started the thread, the individual was penalized (though it seems she is continuing her behavior unabated).
The thread then spiraled, and people are still arguing off-topic over there.
It is a sad fact that most people here haven't commented on what is actually happening there—the unprovoked insults—but instead found it convenient to critique the person who started the thread.

I participate in many discussions, so perhaps my own patterns are more visible.
But things would likely play out the same way—perhaps even worse—without me (for some issues, an essay isn't required, and one can fix the mood online).
Certain things don't require long-winded explanations; my comments, or the lack thereof, won't make Google's posts any more interesting than they already are. Nor will they erase silvertiger11's creepy stories about the foil-hat conspiracy theorists.🤦

Thanks for the advice; I will attempt to keep it in mind.

@Falco, I did. I just attempted to have a conversation with them first—I wasn't being insulting or anything. I felt it was a reasonable step to take before hitting that little red button.
As for everything else, look, I’m just trying to offer advice and be helpful.
The truth is, during these debates, I sometimes find the other forum members more important than the topic itself. For the most part, I try to remain constructive—and usually, the banter stays within the bounds of the subject matter anyway.
It really should be fine to discuss things in a more relaxed atmosphere.

@Zeko, I’ve reported post 🤦

Donna Doyle2 said:I have stated my position without being insulting to anyone. Just because you disagree—and clearly, your own ideological biases prevented you from actually reading what I wrote with any degree of comprehension (and look, I refuse to be a mindless follower; I often take the unpopular side just to play devil's advocate—if you haven't noticed, I tend to defend whoever is being ganged up on)—that doesn't justify sanctioning me.

👍
That’s essentially the whole point here—maintaining a civilized discussion.
If someone genuinely believes a post violates forum rules, they should simply use the report function.

I honestly cannot fathom how anyone can engage in such an abrasive, combative manner...
Regardless, I've stepped away from that thread.
Just look at how that entire discussion has devolved into a total troll fest...

Donna Doyle2 said:On the other hand, I've been reading some posts from a former moderator—good grief—🤦 she actually views herself as a positive role model who will guide those on the wrong path, implying we'll all find the "right way" once we read her entries.
What really kills me is how this colleague refers to me... 🤣
Is it reasonable for me to feel targeted if a certain user is obsessed with me, following me into other threads and focusing entirely on me instead of the actual topic—even after I told her I would simply ignore her nonsense?

👍

And then, on a thread specifically meant for reporting insults (which were completely unprovoked), you have people sitting there trying to psychoanalyze the person who started the thread.🤦
It's just... heavy.👎

Carol Martinez94 said:I honestly can't decide whether to laugh or cry. You're taking issue with that specific post, yet you ignore this one—and especially this one, which is just a reaction to the posts made by that particular chauvinist.

?
The first post was in the chat, the second was a review of an ad, and both were from a different female member—not from that guy.
The third post is yours; that's what you're actually commenting on.

I have zero interest in discussing comments directed at him.
Why didn't you report the quoted posts from the third link to the moderators?
Those kinds of actions warrant red cards.

This forum isn't a place where individual users should try to play judge, jury, and executioner. We have moderation for a reason.
That is precisely why I opened this thread.
If a user is breaking the rules (which, in my view, is obvious here), then they should be penalized.
Not by you, not by me, or some random bystander—but by the moderation team.
Insulting other members (and I am not referring to the author of this thread) goes against our community guidelines; that is why this topic exists.

Different strokes for different folks.
Do I look like I'm defending that guy to you?

Carol Martinez94 said:I would feel quite embarrassed to say this if I were in your shoes.

There ought to be a standard on this forum, and that standard shouldn't include insulting other members.
The expectation is that if you encounter a violation, you report it.
If there is no response from staff, then you start a thread here.

That’s basic etiquette, isn't it?
Good grief, what is this thread even about? 🤦

Carol Martinez94 said:I absolutely regret my previous stance where I hesitated to condemn those trolling one-liners; for some misguided reason, I believed it was mere ignorance, but now it is perfectly clear that it is pure insolence.

I thought you were a better person than this.

I enter a thread, react to an obvious rule violation (a female member calling everyone who disagrees with her "idiots" and various other slurs), attempt to de-escalate the situation—since this forum is meant for civilized discussion—and then I get hit with this?

Truly pathetic. 👎

There’s a report button right below—use the red one on the left if you encounter any misconduct, including chauvinism.
Those are the rules.
Do not send people back to their hometowns 🤦

At this rate, I'll end up looking like I'm defending chauvinism myself. 🤦🙂🙂

Matthew Anderson said:The user received a warning—a deserved one, in my view. The issue we face here in the States, much like with the hazelnut community, is that a handful of you constantly hijack threads—flipping the entire conversation 180 degrees—just to descend into mindless chatter and trolling. I don’t assume you lack intelligence; rather, it’s obvious you do this specifically to provoke a reaction from others, essentially baiting them into getting flagged when they finally snap at you. That is, by definition, pure trolling. Furthermore, you quite openly admitted to trolling within the same thread. Therefore, if anyone deserves to be hit with warnings and partial bans, it is those of you creating the chaos—not the users who are simply reacting to your posts.
As Moe pointed out, everyone stays conveniently silent when people are being provoked, trolled, or when misogynistic undertones are being slipped in—there are no reports then—until someone finally snaps back at you.
It is clear to me that it is time to return to more rigorous moderation. We need to suppress any drift toward off-topic chatting or trolling right at the start, and that is how it will be moving forward.
Consequently, there will be no "lenient" moderation from here on out.

It’s a shame about the lighter moderation; some things were working fine.
I appreciate the response—posts like these truly aren't acceptable;

🙂

The insults bothered me—I believe these types of posts are unacceptable. I didn't report the sarcastic remarks Éowyn directed at me; I wasn't looking for a fight.
I am perfectly fine with a lively atmosphere and healthy debate—I do my best to remain constructive.
I am sorry that such behavior bothers silvertiger11 or New York City, though I am quite disappointed by their lack of civility.
As far as I am aware, no one has ever accused me of being a misogynist, nor have I had to defend myself against such claims.

As for everything else, fine. I have no intention of breaking the rules or acting foolishly.
We did veer too far into casual chat on certain threads; you warned us, and I believe we have scaled it back.
You say that isn't enough—well, we will scale it back further...
Just look at how many conversations started normally before spiraling into nothing but idle chatter...

Frank Lee said:I'm not seeing where the trolling is—could someone clarify?
It’s correct based on the general rules—and those apply to everyone.
Since it doesn't target a specific individual, the interpretation holds up.
👍

It wasn't you; it was New York City.
As for the rest of 👍

silvertiger11 said:Is my memory failing me, or did Wikipedia and panther already receive partial bans due to their chatting? Whose bright idea was it to let them back in? If anyone is willing to share.

I didn't get a partial ban, but thanks anyway, silvertiger11.

I can't tell if you just have a passion for baiting people? 🍿

My complaint stems from the fact that this individual is being insulting—nothing more, nothing less.
The fact that you don't like me is entirely your own issue. 😉
It’s almost amusing—in a way—that you lack the initiative to start your own thread when something bothers you, yet you find it perfectly easy to troll others.😁

There are established rules here, and it would be decent to actually follow them.
That is all.
Personal insults have no place in the discourse on an American forum.
At least, they shouldn't.

@nemogu, what’s the actual issue here?
Since when did being provocative become against the rules?
There is a distinct difference—a massive one, really—between outright insults and simply being provocative.🍿
Do you honestly think what Joan of Arc is doing is acceptable?

@Alienica 🙂

Why is this being allowed?

Look—one individual picks fights with half the community, starts hurling direct insults at participants, and faces zero consequences?
I am not suggesting immediate bans or anything extreme—but it would be highly appropriate for a moderator or administrator to point out the rule violations to this user and move her off-topic remarks elsewhere.

I’ll admit my own faults—I have overstepped, trolled, and gone off-topic before—and I actually appreciate a light touch when it comes to moderation (in fact, I am quite a fan of 😬)—but this situation feels genuinely 😲
If someone could just prune these extra posts and give her a polite warning, it would be greatly appreciated.👍

Joseph Bailey41 said:She just grew up. At the end of the day, a job is there to pay the bills, not necessarily to be this high-octane, thrilling adventure. Honestly, I think people who claim their career is the absolute center of their universe either have pretty empty lives or they're just not being truthful. 😁

👍

ruggedmarlin18 said:That is a terrible reason to have children.

Living without kids doesn't make us incomplete!

Our time isn't being wasted either, since I've got enough pets, hobbies, travels, and books to keep anyone from ever getting bored, as long as they actually care about stuff outside of their nine-to-five!

The idea about the hobby is solid. 👍

I never stated that people are incomplete without children. 😬
I simply meant that it is one possible way to find purpose (though certainly not the only way). 😁 😉
Raising a child is something that can bring immense joy.

@Joseph Bailey41, the larger the corporation, the more sociopaths you'll find lurking in the halls, unfortunately. 😁

The fundamental issue here is that a real "career" in the States usually exists only in theory.
We’re essentially just a small pond—maybe even more like a satellite colony😬
If you're looking to stack some serious cash, you'd be better off seeking an outsourcing role (or finding one yourself); you could spend a few years traveling the globe and amass more wealth than you ever could in decades working here.
Ambition requires a sense of purpose.
Personally, I would suggest focusing on kids 😁
It’s a rewarding way to round out a person—it gives you plenty of extra "responsibilities" to manage—but more importantly, your time isn't being wasted; you actually see the tangible results of your hard work and dedication.
Then, whatever downtime you have left at the office can be spent surfing or finding better ways to spend your energy. 😁
Alternatively, find a way to turn your hobbies into a business so you won't have to do this job anymore.🤔

nimbleridge5 said:At its core, this is really just about looking at things practically. You basically just put all the factors on a scale and see which side carries more weight.

On one hand, you have this authoritarian, somewhat flamboyant leader who chased off the local farmers—which was a massive blunder because it permanently crippled the Midwest—and dealt with the Italians (though some might say they got exactly what they bargained for). He didn't spend much energy defending those who collaborated with the Nazis after the war either, nor did he seem to care much about the fates of those fleeing alongside them—honestly, the list of crimes is endless. It’s funny how people tend to pick on the losers, especially when they were so deeply compromised themselves. I mean, who was out there feeling sorry for the conquistadors when, in rare instances, they caught a beating from the Native Americans? How would the elites of our society react if they had their own camps and were busy wiping out the American intellectual elite alongside everyone else who fell into their hands? Even Douglas MacArthur ended up facing the ultimate judgment in the eyes of civilization for us Americans, and women were publicly shamed just for being with the occupiers.
He ruled with a firmer hand, sure, but nothing that couldn't be compared to other leaders in American history. And honestly, looking at how chaotic things are today, you could argue that a firm hand is actually the best way to manage such a fractured nation.

On the flip side, thanks to his leadership, you get almost perfect territorial integrity, an infrastructure that was kept up and even improved (take the massive expansion of the national power grid and dam projects compared to the single aging plant we used to rely on), and generally the easiest standard of living among all the countries that were once behind the Iron Curtain.
As a little bonus, you can point out that he was respected and held in high regard by the entire world, even by the Nazis themselves 😲 (though it feels like some people here are even bigger fascists than Hitler—pardon me, I meant Himmler 😁), and even most Americans weren't exactly throwing parades back in May of '80 🙂

To me, it’s perfectly clear where the scale tips and which of these factors actually matters more.

What does the territorial integrity of the US have to do with Marshall?
The man shrank the country by 20% (about 15,000 sq miles of Canada, plus a chunk of Iowa/Mexico near Sioux City that remains outside), it would have been 30% if it weren't for the fact that the US reclaimed California, Maui, Kauai, Martha's Vineyard, and half of present-day San Diego and Seattle (along with the area near Buffalo—again, depending on your criteria, but it was effectively a return to former status).

The world respected both Stalin and Saddam Hussein; if business is profitable, does anyone in the West truly care who someone killed?

lonetrucker4 said:No, but I won't—it's just too glaringly obvious. I'll concede that you might not be aware of it.

You're projecting.
I already made it clear earlier—expanding the US to include a few million people who have zero interest in being part of the same nation simply wouldn't make sense.
And I haven't once implied that the US should expand.
Surely one is allowed to comment on history and point out past mistakes—after all, history is the greatest teacher—without having to advocate for seizing everything from Tokyo to Milwaukee (just in a different local context).
Drawing a map is the easy part.

Besides, it really isn't that hard to do a quick Google search;
https://www.google.com/search?q=wiki...t=firefox-b-ab
https://www.google.com/search?client....0.gZnon1gHKas

https://www.google.com/search?client....0.nGokzVlgR6U

That’s beside the point (sorry for the tangent), but just so we're clear...

lonetrucker4 said:I’m going to take that as a joke—especially since you were already drawing maps that basically carved up Canada.

So finding the link isn't really an issue for you then, is it?

Actually, that's not true.
Muslims and Mexicans were in conflict—yet there were times in Memphis when they were actually buying grenades and artillery support from one another.

The question on the 91st census isn't about what citizenship you hold; it's about your ethnic identity—how you truly feel inside.

Besides, that's not really the topic here; there are certain rules you're expected to follow.
And that's exactly where the issue lies.
You're just making yourself look bad, and frankly, you're doing the same to everyone else.
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...&postcount=210