Posts by Elizabeth Jackson

I’ve gone back through your arguments several times now because you seem to be circling the same points over and over. I think I finally have a clear grasp of where you stand, so for my part, the debate is over. Honestly, I don't see any point in beating a dead horse or spiraling into an endless, exhausting discussion about something that just doesn't warrant this much energy anymore. 🥱

Look, you’re entitled to your opinion, and everyone else here is too. If you feel like things are getting unclear or if there's some issue with how we're communicating, I'd suggest reaching out to the site moderators who handle the forum rules.

I laid everything out for you in my previous post, so I really don't see the need to repeat myself. Please, let's not start acting like Plants112, going in circles and doing the exact same thing all over again...

Brenda Gonzalez12, I’ll get back to you once I’m home from dealing with the family and work 🙂, though I suspect there isn't much point in dragging this out any further... 🕺
I haven't even bothered to read your entire response because there's really no need; I can tell just by glancing at how you start your sentences and how you skip around the text that you're just playing the same broken record. It seems everything has to be done exactly your way, and if anyone dares to suggest a different path, they're simply wrong or foolish.
It's probably best if I just let you cling to that conviction.
That might honestly be the worst thing for you in the long run, but it's your choice to make, and I suppose I'll respect it...

I really don't have the energy to spend months on this kind of hollow dialogue, repeating myself over and over only to end up reading your own recycled arguments again. In the end, the conclusion and our differing perspectives will be exactly where they started. 🤷

You haven't budged an inch on your position (if anything, you've just dug your heels in deeper), nor have I moved on mine—not that I'm trying to change your mind or even particularly care to. 🤷
Everything following these debates and exchanges of ideas usually ends up exactly where it began (which is 99.99% of the cases on these forums), so I have to wonder—is it even worth wasting our time or taxing the servers? 🤷

Since you were the one who originally started this thread regarding moderation, I don't see much sense in drifting off-topic; perhaps we should wait until some actual moderators step in before continuing the discussion...🙂

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

Noah Diaz said:The mods don't even bother following basic Reddit rules. We've complained about it multiple times, but nothing changes. To them, ad hominem attacks are just standard procedure.

Here are a few recent examples:

You’re lying persistently and rudely.

Liar.

You're lying, you're [redacted], and you're protected by this site's moderation.

We're assuming those who deny AGW are just demagogic liars, hypocrites, and egomaniacs. Or at best, idiots.

You're lying. You're lying. You're lying.

Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

Elizabeth Jackson said:And which ones are those? 🤔
Don't you think that might actually sound like an insult to some people?
I mean, if calling someone a mercenary is considered offensive (and let's be honest, we're all paid for the jobs we do; nobody is working entirely on a volunteer basis, right?), then I really don't understand how it's perfectly fine to label someone a conspiracy theorist (and to do so countless times on this specific sub-forum). 🤷

I suspect you might be getting a bit carried away, or perhaps there's a visible personal interest in why you're attacking alternative methods so aggressively.
Good grief, Jessica Morris6, have you forgotten that you are currently in the Alternative sub-forum?
If the topic on this specific board is, say, treating a certain ailment, by what logic or rule (or even what law🤦) is it considered a violation for someone to offer advice they believe to be helpful, provided it stays on topic? 🤷
Come on now, we aren't living in a totalitarian state where citizens don't have the right to express their opinions, especially regarding topics they are discussing.

Is it possible you haven't thoroughly read this:
All posts represent the opinions of their authors, not the owners of the Forum, the editorial staff, or Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (the creators of the vBulletin software). They cannot be held responsible for the content. The Forum staff works to sanction prohibited posts, though some may be overlooked or missed initially. We ask for your understanding, and if you wish to help, you are free to report any post you believe violates the rules by clicking the report icon.
...and finally, it states:
By agreeing to these rules, you may proceed with registration. If they are unacceptable to you and you do not wish to abide by them, you can return to the Forum homepage by clicking this link. Thank you for your attention, and we hope you enjoy your stay on the Forum!

There, it is all laid out for you (and everyone else), so I trust there should be no further ambiguity regarding what people are permitted to write here, or what the respective rights of users and others are on this platform.

I couldn't agree more.
And that's precisely why—given what I mentioned earlier and what was quoted—you know how this works.
Besides, you always have the ignore button.

On this forum, you have just as much right to your own perspective and opinion as anyone else.
Whether you are correct or someone else is, you'll never convince anyone by attacking them or labeling their posts as incorrect or stupid; honestly, that just comes across as a sign of weakness.
Ultimately, who is right and who isn't will be decided solely by those who choose to read, and none of us can influence that. The only thing you can really do to defend your own stance is to use solid arguments and present them decently.
Adopting a style that feels more like small-town gossip or a mob mentality certainly won't change anyone's mind. In fact, you'll probably just trigger a backlash.

Regarding everything else you wrote, I don't think I need to reiterate that you have the right to your own opinion and that nobody in the universe can strip away your subjective perception, but there's really no need to exhaust the forum with it.
I think the ignore option is perfect for you. Why not give it a try?
Why bother struggling with it?
I've actually added some of the most extreme characters to my ignore list, and I feel much better for it because I'm no longer reading the same four repetitive sentences over and over again...
I can tell you, it's a wonderful feeling—I simply refuse to waste even a shred of energy on things I consider worthless.

I noticed that too—that no one is moderating, even though they are officially listed as moderators. That's why I stopped using the report button; there's no point, it's like saying good morning to a deaf man.

Look, while we're on the subject, I could link you to dozens, if not over a hundred, posts by Plant112 (and a few others) where he directly insults users and trolls in ways that wouldn't be tolerated on any forum in the world (feel free to notify him so he can join in!), and this has been happening constantly for three and a half years without any meaningful reaction. I should also mention that on the Alternative sub-forum, the guy hasn't made a single constructive or on-topic post.
The most any of the mods have actually done is call someone out for being an idiot or acting foolishly, maybe deleting a post or handing out 20 points for breaking a sub-forum rule... or handing out a yellow card... 🤦
So, what am I supposed to take from that?
Should I just start a thread about him on the Forum and waste my precious time doing it?
Believe me, I have much more pleasant and engaging work to do than that...

Personally, I feel like things on the Alternative sub-forum functioned much better back when gargamišamel was moderating.
She was strict, and she applied her standards fairly across the board (more or less).
And every so often, someone would pull a stunt, get a card, and rack up enough points for a ban.
Except for me, of course—I've never had a single ban. 🙂

Perhaps it would be more productive to discuss this and perhaps offer some suggestions for a third moderator who might perform better over at Alternative.
Naturally, that individual would need to come from the Alternative circles and possess actual knowledge of the subject matter; otherwise, it would be just as pointless as the current situation, if not more so...
I think we can all agree that an Alternative enthusiast wouldn't be fit to moderate the medical or science sections...

We've already touched on that—that's simply your perception and your personal stance.
Someone else might see things entirely differently, or they might feel exactly the same way about your own contributions?
And then who gets lynched? 😁

I trust you'll agree that you can't just subjectively declare someone's posts illogical, inaccurate, or irrational, and then expect them to be sanctioned just because that's how you feel or because you don't particularly like them... because someone else could just as easily make that same demand regarding you.

That is precisely why Forum rules exist.
And we need moderators who will actually adhere to them and operate by them. 🙂
Believe me, if the rules were strictly enforced, there practically wouldn't be any issues, and the only people being flagged would be those rare few whose every third post out of 50,000 is already against the rules anyway. 🙂

🙂

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

Matthew Castillo5 said:If someone, despite having access to all the facts, decides to try and treat their cancer with fruit juice, shark cartilage, bioenergy, or by visiting Ivo Pavić and praying instead of using actual medical services, that's on them. They own that choice and they deal with the consequences.

Besides, official stances on whether certain foods are "good" or "bad" change all the time anyway. One day lard is the villain, then butter is the enemy, and suddenly margarine is the only way to go—only for them to turn around later and show that margarine might actually be the worst of the three.

In my humble opinion, moderators shouldn't be playing judge and jury over whether someone's opinion is "correct." Their job is to make sure the conversation stays civilized. At the end of the day, people have the right to hold views that others might completely disagree with.

👍

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

At the end of the day, whether someone actually took offense or not is almost secondary; it doesn't really depend on what one person supposedly said to another. I suppose I should mention that I’ve submitted it. So, I was just wondering... are we actually talking about the opposing side here? received Just exactly the way that miserable sender was hoping it would happen.
The rules actually provide a much more precise definition of what constitutes an insult, though even then, I suppose it’s still a bit of a gray area in practice. That doesn't change anything regarding what was mentioned above.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

You’re just spinning the same old yarn again. 🥱
I hear you, and I truly respect your right to have your own opinion—no one is trying to take that away from you or deny it. However, I think it’s worth trying to understand that... The second one. It’s possible they think so, I suppose. It’s a completely different story. And that’s just my two cents on the matter. It feels like they act as if they possess every single right under the sun. I suspect that what you're writing might be a bit too deep for them to really wrap their heads around—it’s probably all just a little too complex for their tastes. 🤷
Whether a claim is considered proven or unproven, whether it’s perceived as foolish or coherent, or whether it feels grounded in reality—it really all comes down to how you frame the argument. I guess it’s less about the raw data itself and more about the lens through which we choose to view it. Maybe we overcomplicate things by searching for absolute certainty when, in truth, most of what we debate is just a matter of perspective. It's a bit of a gray area, isn't it? That doesn't really hold any water as an argument, if you ask me. It’s just not a valid point at all.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
Of course they do. Everyone carries their own perspective, their own set of opinions, and—if you'll permit me to say so—their own personal convictions. Perhaps. I’ve been digging into the data, and honestly, once you look at the actual facts and arguments, the supposed "success rate" of that self-proclaimed expert from XYZ starts to fall apart. When you run the numbers, their track record fails to hold up for at least 6 out of every 23 patients they treat. It’s also worth noting that this individual isn't even listed among any of the recognized professionals in the field.

Perhaps. It really comes down to knowledge.

And she's entitled to all her other rights, just like anyone else in this country.
What's going on? I suppose we could go around in circles debating the specific points, but honestly, I think we’re missing the forest for the trees here. It feels like we're just throwing arguments at a wall to see what sticks, rather than actually addressing the core issue. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I suspect that if we really dig into the substance of what's being said, the logic starts to feel a bit thin. It's hard to build a solid case when the foundation itself seems so shaky, don't you think? As far as those go, I suppose it’s actually quite alright if someone happens to have them, regardless of what kind they might be.
The absolute worst part is when they aren't even around to witness it, yet they somehow manage to repeat the exact same mistake a hundred times over.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I suppose it all depends on whose perspective you're looking from regarding who gets labeled as an expert... for instance, vera Čudina was championed by certain people as an authority, much like how braco from Srebrnjak was
. And speaking of braco, I actually met a woman once who insisted—and she gave me a incredibly detailed account of how—that braco literally saved her child's life. She told me straight up that anyone calling him a fraud is just being foolish.
To be honest, until that conversation, I had pretty much pegged him as a total con artist... I haven't exactly changed my mind about him entirely, but I'm fairly certain she wasn't lying, mainly because I know the whole story down to the smallest detail.
There's no scam here, no money involved, no confusion, and no tall tales; it’s as clear as day and fully verified.
He helped a child.
Some might find that hard to swallow, but I'm not writing this to provoke anyone. I still don't hold braco in particularly high regard (mostly due to the lack of concrete, real-world evidence), but I'm simply laying out the facts to show that subjective perception and personal experience often carry much more weight than anything else...

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

Whew, that gave me a bit of a scare. 🙂 There’s already someone else making similar, rather hopeless and bitter threats over in the cancer treatment thread.
Actually, looking at the link provided, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that what I mentioned violates any rules.
It seems to be nothing more than a clumsy attempt to twist someone else's words through insinuation.

Take another look at what I actually asked:

Elizabeth Jackson said:And which ones are those? 🤔
Don't you think that might actually sound like an insult to some people?
I mean, if calling someone a mercenary is considered offensive (and let's be honest, we're all paid for the jobs we do; nobody is working entirely on a volunteer basis, right?), then I really don't understand how it's perfectly fine to label someone a conspiracy theorist (and to do so countless times on this specific sub-forum). 🤷

I suspect you might be getting a bit carried away, or perhaps there's a visible personal interest in why you're attacking alternative methods so aggressively.
Good grief, Jessica Morris6, have you forgotten that you are currently in the Alternative sub-forum?
If the topic on this specific board is, say, treating a certain ailment, by what logic or rule (or even what law🤦) is it considered a violation for someone to offer advice they believe to be helpful, provided it stays on topic? 🤷
Come on now, we aren't living in a totalitarian state where citizens don't have the right to express their opinions, especially regarding topics they are discussing.

Is it possible you haven't thoroughly read this:
All posts represent the opinions of their authors, not the owners of the Forum, the editorial staff, or Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (the creators of the vBulletin software). They cannot be held responsible for the content. The Forum staff works to sanction prohibited posts, though some may be overlooked or missed initially. We ask for your understanding, and if you wish to help, you are free to report any post you believe violates the rules by clicking the report icon.
...and finally, it states:
By agreeing to these rules, you may proceed with registration. If they are unacceptable to you and you do not wish to abide by them, you can return to the Forum homepage by clicking this link. Thank you for your attention, and we hope you enjoy your stay on the Forum!

There, it is all laid out for you (and everyone else), so I trust there should be no further ambiguity regarding what people are permitted to write here, or what the respective rights of users and others are on this platform.

I couldn't agree more.
And that's precisely why—given what I mentioned earlier and what was quoted—you know how this works.
Besides, you always have the ignore button.

On this forum, you have just as much right to your own perspective and opinion as anyone else.
Whether you are correct or someone else is, you'll never convince anyone by attacking them or labeling their posts as incorrect or stupid; honestly, that just comes across as a sign of weakness.
Ultimately, who is right and who isn't will be decided solely by those who choose to read, and none of us can influence that. The only thing you can really do to defend your own stance is to use solid arguments and present them decently.
Adopting a style that feels more like small-town gossip or a mob mentality certainly won't change anyone's mind. In fact, you'll probably just trigger a backlash.

Regarding everything else you wrote, I don't think I need to reiterate that you have the right to your own opinion and that nobody in the universe can strip away your subjective perception, but there's really no need to exhaust the forum with it.
I think the ignore option is perfect for you. Why not give it a try?
Why bother struggling with it?
I've actually added some of the most extreme characters to my ignore list, and I feel much better for it because I'm no longer reading the same four repetitive sentences over and over again...
I can tell you, it's a wonderful feeling—I simply refuse to waste even a shred of energy on things I consider worthless.

I noticed that too—that no one is moderating, even though they are officially listed as moderators. That's why I stopped using the report button; there's no point, it's like saying good morning to a deaf man.

Look, while we're on the subject, I could link you to dozens, if not over a hundred, posts by Plant112 (and a few others) where he directly insults users and trolls in ways that wouldn't be tolerated on any forum in the world (feel free to notify him so he can join in!), and this has been happening constantly for three and a half years without any meaningful reaction. I should also mention that on the Alternative sub-forum, the guy hasn't made a single constructive or on-topic post.
The most any of the mods have actually done is call someone out for being an idiot or acting foolishly, maybe deleting a post or handing out 20 points for breaking a sub-forum rule... or handing out a yellow card... 🤦
So, what am I supposed to take from that?
Should I just start a thread about him on the Forum and waste my precious time doing it?
Believe me, I have much more pleasant and engaging work to do than that...

Personally, I feel like things on the Alternative sub-forum functioned much better back when gargamišamel was moderating.
She was strict, and she applied her standards fairly across the board (more or less).
And every so often, someone would pull a stunt, get a card, and rack up enough points for a ban.
Except for me, of course—I've never had a single ban. 🙂

Perhaps it would be more productive to discuss this and perhaps offer some suggestions for a third moderator who might perform better over at Alternative.
Naturally, that individual would need to come from the Alternative circles and possess actual knowledge of the subject matter; otherwise, it would be just as pointless as the current situation, if not more so...
I think we can all agree that an Alternative enthusiast wouldn't be fit to moderate the medical or science sections...

We've already touched on that—that's simply your perception and your personal stance.
Someone else might see things entirely differently, or they might feel exactly the same way about your own contributions?
And then who gets lynched? 😁

I trust you'll agree that you can't just subjectively declare someone's posts illogical, inaccurate, or irrational, and then expect them to be sanctioned just because that's how you feel or because you don't particularly like them... because someone else could just as easily make that same demand regarding you.

That is precisely why Forum rules exist.
And we need moderators who will actually adhere to them and operate by them. 🙂
Believe me, if the rules were strictly enforced, there practically wouldn't be any issues, and the only people being flagged would be those rare few whose every third post out of 50,000 is already against the rules anyway. 🙂

So, please, feel free to quote or link the specific part of the law that is violated when someone in an alternative medicine thread offers advice they consider useful and relevant to the topic?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I think you're mistaken, though you actually admitted that yourself in your very second sentence.
I am perfectly free to say whatever I want.>
Provided, of course, that I don't break any US Laws, make threats, or harass anyone.
There you have it.
If my freedom of speech bothers someone, then I suppose their only options are to suffer in silence or file a lawsuit and let the legal institutions handle it... 🥱

Jessica Morris6 said:I don't have a personal agenda. In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but only up to the point where they aren't endangering someone else.
To me, it doesn't matter if you label it "alternative." You can't hide behind a label—whatever that may be—to do things that put people's lives at risk, regardless of whether you call it alternative medicine or anything else...

Let me give you an extreme example. Imagine we were living under a fascist regime; you're a fascist, and I tell you, "You can't kill that Jewish family, it's wrong," and you snap back at me, "Good grief, we're living in a fascist state, where in the laws does it say I can't?"

(and by what law? 🤦 )

I can't recall the exact name of the statute, but there is a law stating that unqualified individuals aren't allowed to provide medical advice to the public.

I already posted this there recently. I believe the alternative/alternative medicine PDF should be a place to gather information on preventative measures for various illnesses, not a place where people claim drinking a certain juice will cure cancer.
You know, stuff like what to drink, what to eat, which diets are garbage... etc. Personally, I might actually look for those kinds of tips there more often if the threads weren't being clogged up by all this other nonsense...

I agree with that. But I’m constantly discussing alternatives here, and nobody seems to have an issue with that. 🤷
The reality is that users on this Reddit often try to help one another by sharing methods that are concrete, thoroughly vetted, and proven through practical experience, yet for some reason, you are insisting (or perhaps assuming) that doing so somehow endangers lives. 🤦

Jessica Morris6 said:I don't have a personal agenda. In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but only up to the point where they aren't endangering someone else.
To me, it doesn't matter if you label it "alternative." You can't hide behind a label—whatever that may be—to do things that put people's lives at risk, regardless of whether you call it alternative medicine or anything else...

Let me give you an extreme example. Imagine we were living under a fascist regime; you're a fascist, and I tell you, "You can't kill that Jewish family, it's wrong," and you snap back at me, "Good grief, we're living in a fascist state, where in the laws does it say I can't?"

(and by what law? 🤦 )

I can't recall the exact name of the statute, but there is a law stating that unqualified individuals aren't allowed to provide medical advice to the public.

I already posted this there recently. I believe the alternative/alternative medicine PDF should be a place to gather information on preventative measures for various illnesses, not a place where people claim drinking a certain juice will cure cancer.
You know, stuff like what to drink, what to eat, which diets are garbage... etc. Personally, I might actually look for those kinds of tips there more often if the threads weren't being clogged up by all this other nonsense...

Please, find that specific law and post it here—show us exactly how someone participating in a thread about alternative wellness, while sharing advice they intend to be helpful and which has been repeatedly validated by people who have actually recovered, is somehow violating the law!
I'll be waiting! 🙂

Jessica Morris6 said:I don't have a personal agenda. In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but only up to the point where they aren't endangering someone else.
To me, it doesn't matter if you label it "alternative." You can't hide behind a label—whatever that may be—to do things that put people's lives at risk, regardless of whether you call it alternative medicine or anything else...

Let me give you an extreme example. Imagine we were living under a fascist regime; you're a fascist, and I tell you, "You can't kill that Jewish family, it's wrong," and you snap back at me, "Good grief, we're living in a fascist state, where in the laws does it say I can't?"

(and by what law? 🤦 )

I can't recall the exact name of the statute, but there is a law stating that unqualified individuals aren't allowed to provide medical advice to the public.

I already posted this there recently. I believe the alternative/alternative medicine PDF should be a place to gather information on preventative measures for various illnesses, not a place where people claim drinking a certain juice will cure cancer.
You know, stuff like what to drink, what to eat, which diets are garbage... etc. Personally, I might actually look for those kinds of tips there more often if the threads weren't being clogged up by all this other nonsense...

But why shouldn't they write about it if it genuinely helps someone and if it has been proven effective through real-world application? 🤔
Isn't that, first and foremost, the entire reason this sub-forum even exists—to offer a hand to people, especially those whom mainstream medicine failed to help and who are searching for support through alternative methods because the medical establishment has quite literally written them off and labeled them incurable?

Jessica Morris6 said:Conspiracy theorists and skeptics alike are constantly trading insults, letting trolls run wild, and making fools out of one another, all while ignoring an endless stream of community guidelines... Of all the threads I follow, the most blatant violations are happening right here in this discussion
On top of that, we have random internet strangers giving out medical advice, telling people to skip their doctors in favor of some "miracle juice" for serious illnesses, or claiming vaccines cause autism... it's reckless,
I mean, seriously, dear moderators, esteemed super-mods, and highly respected administrators...

And which ones are those? 🤔
Don't you think that might actually sound like an insult to some people?
I mean, if calling someone a mercenary is considered offensive (and let's be honest, we're all paid for the jobs we do; nobody is working entirely on a volunteer basis, right?), then I really don't understand how it's perfectly fine to label someone a conspiracy theorist (and to do so countless times on this specific sub-forum). 🤷

Jessica Morris6 said:Conspiracy theorists and skeptics alike are constantly trading insults, letting trolls run wild, and making fools out of one another, all while ignoring an endless stream of community guidelines... Of all the threads I follow, the most blatant violations are happening right here in this discussion
On top of that, we have random internet strangers giving out medical advice, telling people to skip their doctors in favor of some "miracle juice" for serious illnesses, or claiming vaccines cause autism... it's reckless,
I mean, seriously, dear moderators, esteemed super-mods, and highly respected administrators...

I suspect you might be getting a bit carried away, or perhaps there's a visible personal interest in why you're attacking alternative methods so aggressively.
Good grief, Jessica Morris6, have you forgotten that you are currently in the Alternative sub-forum?
If the topic on this specific board is, say, treating a certain ailment, by what logic or rule (or even what law🤦) is it considered a violation for someone to offer advice they believe to be helpful, provided it stays on topic? 🤷
Come on now, we aren't living in a totalitarian state where citizens don't have the right to express their opinions, especially regarding topics they are discussing.

Is it possible you haven't thoroughly read this:
All posts represent the opinions of their authors, not the owners of the Forum, the editorial staff, or Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (the creators of the vBulletin software). They cannot be held responsible for the content. The Forum staff works to sanction prohibited posts, though some may be overlooked or missed initially. We ask for your understanding, and if you wish to help, you are free to report any post you believe violates the rules by clicking the report icon.
...and finally, it states:
By agreeing to these rules, you may proceed with registration. If they are unacceptable to you and you do not wish to abide by them, you can return to the Forum homepage by clicking this link. Thank you for your attention, and we hope you enjoy your stay on the Forum!

There, it is all laid out for you (and everyone else), so I trust there should be no further ambiguity regarding what people are permitted to write here, or what the respective rights of users and others are on this platform.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:I see things completely differently! For me, this Forum is just a great place to swap ideas on just about anything. It’s where I pick up interesting tidbits I never knew before, and occasionally, I get to jump in and share what I know on certain topics. I don't view it as my whole life, nor is it some venting ground for frustrations or a stage where I feel like I have to prove myself to anyone. If you want to listen and read, that's awesome—if not, no big deal!
Look, I am absolutely not going to sit here and let some random nobody hiding behind a screen name barge into a conversation just to throw insults at someone else. Honestly, when someone storms into a discussion like a wrecking ball of pure vitriol, it’s a dead giveaway that they lack basic manners. It usually stems from deep-seated frustrations that manifest as this bizarre, over-the-top arrogance and sheer rudeness. The whole point of a healthy debate—you know, where you and I hash things out using logic and evidence to see which side holds more weight—is so that we both walk away having learned something new. That's how a real conversation works! But if some jerk jumps in and starts calling you a stoner or a hypochondriac, and then turns around and calls me some pseudo-scientific dogmatist who doesn't know a thing about the topic... well, at first, you just ignore them or tell them to get lost. But what happens when they keep posting? What happens when they start dragging the entire discussion off into ten different, irrelevant directions? That's when it becomes a real problem.
That’s exactly why that guy gets under my skin! Look, if he wants to write posts that actually stay on topic, jump into discussions, and just be cool with everyone, then fine—no complaints from me. But this habit of jumping from thread to thread just to tell people, "You're an idiot," or "You have no clue what you're talking about," or "Here's why you're wrong"... honestly, sorry, but I just can't stand it. It's exhausting!

Well, here we go! It’s been about twenty days since our moderator, Behemoth, went MIA, and with BatKol gone too, the whole place feels like a ghost town. Seriously, nobody—and I mean absolutely nobody—is responding to posts or even checking the report tickets. That’s exactly why I decided to dump all this into this thread; I was holding out hope that maybe one of the admins or supermods would pop in and actually address things. But nope, total radio silence. So, if this is turning into a free-for-all, then fine—let's dance! If we're going to trade insults, let's just get it over with, and if people want to start flame wars in different threads, then so be it. The real kicker, though, is the blatant double standard happening here. Some people are getting a complete pass on breaking the rules, and I’m looking specifically at Jason Grant. It’s honestly ridiculous how much rule-breaking he gets away with. While other users are getting hit with yellow or red cards or having their entire posts nuked, his stuff stays up like nothing happened. The last time I tried to report someone, my own posts were the ones that got deleted, while his remained untouched. And wouldn't you know it, I didn't even get any penalty points for it! So, really, what kind of system are we even talking about here?
Before that, we had Bonecrusher. Honestly, the guy was running a one-man show, posting from two different profiles and basically having full conversations with himself! Back then, there weren't any real sanctions in place—well, maybe just a polite little nudge through the Democrats asking him to cut it out. But if we actually sat down and started digging into who else here might be using multiple accounts... man, we’d probably find all sorts of characters if we really went looking for them!

Honestly, there’s absolutely no hate here. If you look back a year or two, you might remember when LUN used to post on this Forum. Back then, some people were actually claiming that certain folks—myself included—were harboring some kind of grudge against him. But let me tell you, there wasn't a shred of hatred involved. In fact, LUN was someone who truly worked wonders with his posts; he always had something interesting to say. I never once felt even a tiny bit of animosity toward him. He was actually quite a likable guy in his own way, so if he happens to be reading this, I’m sending him my very best wishes! The same goes for rocky007, Vatra, and even Iknar. We all came here to share our thoughts, and sure, we don't always see eye to eye, but from my side, there is zero malice toward anyone. All I really want is for us to respect the community guidelines and keep things civil.

I couldn't agree more.
And that's precisely why—given what I mentioned earlier and what was quoted—you know how this works.
Besides, you always have the ignore button.

On this forum, you have just as much right to your own perspective and opinion as anyone else.
Whether you are correct or someone else is, you'll never convince anyone by attacking them or labeling their posts as incorrect or stupid; honestly, that just comes across as a sign of weakness.
Ultimately, who is right and who isn't will be decided solely by those who choose to read, and none of us can influence that. The only thing you can really do to defend your own stance is to use solid arguments and present them decently.
Adopting a style that feels more like small-town gossip or a mob mentality certainly won't change anyone's mind. In fact, you'll probably just trigger a backlash.

Regarding everything else you wrote, I don't think I need to reiterate that you have the right to your own opinion and that nobody in the universe can strip away your subjective perception, but there's really no need to exhaust the forum with it.
I think the ignore option is perfect for you. Why not give it a try?
Why bother struggling with it?
I've actually added some of the most extreme characters to my ignore list, and I feel much better for it because I'm no longer reading the same four repetitive sentences over and over again...
I can tell you, it's a wonderful feeling—I simply refuse to waste even a shred of energy on things I consider worthless.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:I see things completely differently! For me, this Forum is just a great place to swap ideas on just about anything. It’s where I pick up interesting tidbits I never knew before, and occasionally, I get to jump in and share what I know on certain topics. I don't view it as my whole life, nor is it some venting ground for frustrations or a stage where I feel like I have to prove myself to anyone. If you want to listen and read, that's awesome—if not, no big deal!
Look, I am absolutely not going to sit here and let some random nobody hiding behind a screen name barge into a conversation just to throw insults at someone else. Honestly, when someone storms into a discussion like a wrecking ball of pure vitriol, it’s a dead giveaway that they lack basic manners. It usually stems from deep-seated frustrations that manifest as this bizarre, over-the-top arrogance and sheer rudeness. The whole point of a healthy debate—you know, where you and I hash things out using logic and evidence to see which side holds more weight—is so that we both walk away having learned something new. That's how a real conversation works! But if some jerk jumps in and starts calling you a stoner or a hypochondriac, and then turns around and calls me some pseudo-scientific dogmatist who doesn't know a thing about the topic... well, at first, you just ignore them or tell them to get lost. But what happens when they keep posting? What happens when they start dragging the entire discussion off into ten different, irrelevant directions? That's when it becomes a real problem.
That’s exactly why that guy gets under my skin! Look, if he wants to write posts that actually stay on topic, jump into discussions, and just be cool with everyone, then fine—no complaints from me. But this habit of jumping from thread to thread just to tell people, "You're an idiot," or "You have no clue what you're talking about," or "Here's why you're wrong"... honestly, sorry, but I just can't stand it. It's exhausting!

Well, here we go! It’s been about twenty days since our moderator, Behemoth, went MIA, and with BatKol gone too, the whole place feels like a ghost town. Seriously, nobody—and I mean absolutely nobody—is responding to posts or even checking the report tickets. That’s exactly why I decided to dump all this into this thread; I was holding out hope that maybe one of the admins or supermods would pop in and actually address things. But nope, total radio silence. So, if this is turning into a free-for-all, then fine—let's dance! If we're going to trade insults, let's just get it over with, and if people want to start flame wars in different threads, then so be it. The real kicker, though, is the blatant double standard happening here. Some people are getting a complete pass on breaking the rules, and I’m looking specifically at Jason Grant. It’s honestly ridiculous how much rule-breaking he gets away with. While other users are getting hit with yellow or red cards or having their entire posts nuked, his stuff stays up like nothing happened. The last time I tried to report someone, my own posts were the ones that got deleted, while his remained untouched. And wouldn't you know it, I didn't even get any penalty points for it! So, really, what kind of system are we even talking about here?
Before that, we had Bonecrusher. Honestly, the guy was running a one-man show, posting from two different profiles and basically having full conversations with himself! Back then, there weren't any real sanctions in place—well, maybe just a polite little nudge through the Democrats asking him to cut it out. But if we actually sat down and started digging into who else here might be using multiple accounts... man, we’d probably find all sorts of characters if we really went looking for them!

Honestly, there’s absolutely no hate here. If you look back a year or two, you might remember when LUN used to post on this Forum. Back then, some people were actually claiming that certain folks—myself included—were harboring some kind of grudge against him. But let me tell you, there wasn't a shred of hatred involved. In fact, LUN was someone who truly worked wonders with his posts; he always had something interesting to say. I never once felt even a tiny bit of animosity toward him. He was actually quite a likable guy in his own way, so if he happens to be reading this, I’m sending him my very best wishes! The same goes for rocky007, Vatra, and even Iknar. We all came here to share our thoughts, and sure, we don't always see eye to eye, but from my side, there is zero malice toward anyone. All I really want is for us to respect the community guidelines and keep things civil.

I noticed that too—that no one is moderating, even though they are officially listed as moderators. That's why I stopped using the report button; there's no point, it's like saying good morning to a deaf man.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:I see things completely differently! For me, this Forum is just a great place to swap ideas on just about anything. It’s where I pick up interesting tidbits I never knew before, and occasionally, I get to jump in and share what I know on certain topics. I don't view it as my whole life, nor is it some venting ground for frustrations or a stage where I feel like I have to prove myself to anyone. If you want to listen and read, that's awesome—if not, no big deal!
Look, I am absolutely not going to sit here and let some random nobody hiding behind a screen name barge into a conversation just to throw insults at someone else. Honestly, when someone storms into a discussion like a wrecking ball of pure vitriol, it’s a dead giveaway that they lack basic manners. It usually stems from deep-seated frustrations that manifest as this bizarre, over-the-top arrogance and sheer rudeness. The whole point of a healthy debate—you know, where you and I hash things out using logic and evidence to see which side holds more weight—is so that we both walk away having learned something new. That's how a real conversation works! But if some jerk jumps in and starts calling you a stoner or a hypochondriac, and then turns around and calls me some pseudo-scientific dogmatist who doesn't know a thing about the topic... well, at first, you just ignore them or tell them to get lost. But what happens when they keep posting? What happens when they start dragging the entire discussion off into ten different, irrelevant directions? That's when it becomes a real problem.
That’s exactly why that guy gets under my skin! Look, if he wants to write posts that actually stay on topic, jump into discussions, and just be cool with everyone, then fine—no complaints from me. But this habit of jumping from thread to thread just to tell people, "You're an idiot," or "You have no clue what you're talking about," or "Here's why you're wrong"... honestly, sorry, but I just can't stand it. It's exhausting!

Well, here we go! It’s been about twenty days since our moderator, Behemoth, went MIA, and with BatKol gone too, the whole place feels like a ghost town. Seriously, nobody—and I mean absolutely nobody—is responding to posts or even checking the report tickets. That’s exactly why I decided to dump all this into this thread; I was holding out hope that maybe one of the admins or supermods would pop in and actually address things. But nope, total radio silence. So, if this is turning into a free-for-all, then fine—let's dance! If we're going to trade insults, let's just get it over with, and if people want to start flame wars in different threads, then so be it. The real kicker, though, is the blatant double standard happening here. Some people are getting a complete pass on breaking the rules, and I’m looking specifically at Jason Grant. It’s honestly ridiculous how much rule-breaking he gets away with. While other users are getting hit with yellow or red cards or having their entire posts nuked, his stuff stays up like nothing happened. The last time I tried to report someone, my own posts were the ones that got deleted, while his remained untouched. And wouldn't you know it, I didn't even get any penalty points for it! So, really, what kind of system are we even talking about here?
Before that, we had Bonecrusher. Honestly, the guy was running a one-man show, posting from two different profiles and basically having full conversations with himself! Back then, there weren't any real sanctions in place—well, maybe just a polite little nudge through the Democrats asking him to cut it out. But if we actually sat down and started digging into who else here might be using multiple accounts... man, we’d probably find all sorts of characters if we really went looking for them!

Honestly, there’s absolutely no hate here. If you look back a year or two, you might remember when LUN used to post on this Forum. Back then, some people were actually claiming that certain folks—myself included—were harboring some kind of grudge against him. But let me tell you, there wasn't a shred of hatred involved. In fact, LUN was someone who truly worked wonders with his posts; he always had something interesting to say. I never once felt even a tiny bit of animosity toward him. He was actually quite a likable guy in his own way, so if he happens to be reading this, I’m sending him my very best wishes! The same goes for rocky007, Vatra, and even Iknar. We all came here to share our thoughts, and sure, we don't always see eye to eye, but from my side, there is zero malice toward anyone. All I really want is for us to respect the community guidelines and keep things civil.

Look, while we're on the subject, I could link you to dozens, if not over a hundred, posts by Plant112 (and a few others) where he directly insults users and trolls in ways that wouldn't be tolerated on any forum in the world (feel free to notify him so he can join in!), and this has been happening constantly for three and a half years without any meaningful reaction. I should also mention that on the Alternative sub-forum, the guy hasn't made a single constructive or on-topic post.
The most any of the mods have actually done is call someone out for being an idiot or acting foolishly, maybe deleting a post or handing out 20 points for breaking a sub-forum rule... or handing out a yellow card... 🤦
So, what am I supposed to take from that?
Should I just start a thread about him on the Forum and waste my precious time doing it?
Believe me, I have much more pleasant and engaging work to do than that...

Personally, I feel like things on the Alternative sub-forum functioned much better back when gargamišamel was moderating.
She was strict, and she applied her standards fairly across the board (more or less).
And every so often, someone would pull a stunt, get a card, and rack up enough points for a ban.
Except for me, of course—I've never had a single ban. 🙂

Perhaps it would be more productive to discuss this and perhaps offer some suggestions for a third moderator who might perform better over at Alternative.
Naturally, that individual would need to come from the Alternative circles and possess actual knowledge of the subject matter; otherwise, it would be just as pointless as the current situation, if not more so...
I think we can all agree that an Alternative enthusiast wouldn't be fit to moderate the medical or science sections...

briskjackal5 said:Honestly, the guy is just rude to everyone he meets, and his posts? They're pretty much devoid of any logic, accuracy, or even a shred of common sense.

So, I guess it’s not really surprising that people are getting worked up about him. Calling it "persecution" might be a bit much, maybe, but it feels more like people are just calling for the kind of sanctions that should have happened ages ago if we want these discussions to actually make sense to a normal person. I mean, as long as someone keeps treating everyone around them like garbage, things are going to get messy. The root of the problem is pretty obvious, don't you think?

-briskjackal5

We've already touched on that—that's simply your perception and your personal stance.
Someone else might see things entirely differently, or they might feel exactly the same way about your own contributions?
And then who gets lynched? 😁

I trust you'll agree that you can't just subjectively declare someone's posts illogical, inaccurate, or irrational, and then expect them to be sanctioned just because that's how you feel or because you don't particularly like them... because someone else could just as easily make that same demand regarding you.

That is precisely why Forum rules exist.
And we need moderators who will actually adhere to them and operate by them. 🙂
Believe me, if the rules were strictly enforced, there practically wouldn't be any issues, and the only people being flagged would be those rare few whose every third post out of 50,000 is already against the rules anyway. 🙂

Actually, that wasn't an inaccurate quote at all; it was entirely spot on. 🙂
It seems there's such a palpable, cutting level of animosity toward one particular member here—it’s almost thick enough to touch—and you all seem hell-bent on turning this entire thread into a coordinated effort to lynch and persecute them.

Honestly, it’s pretty uncalled for.
Just let the moderators handle things. If you see a post that breaks the rules, use the report button and move on.
If you genuinely believe the moderation team isn't doing their job effectively, you know how the process works; feel free to take it up with them directly if you can actually manage to be civil about it.

By acting like this, you're really just souring everyone else's perception of who you people are.

It seems to me that this thread lost its original purpose a long time ago. At this point, it feels like nothing more than a continuous, coordinated campaign against one specific user, Jason Grant. It appears that certain individuals on this forum have shifted their entire focus toward targeting him—not just within this particular discussion, but across the entire site as well.
Just a heads-up, based on the rules here on the Forum, I believe that falls under... It feels like there’s been a bit of a targeted campaign against certain members on this Forum lately. Honestly, it’s getting a little uncomfortable to watch. It seems like some people have made it their personal mission to pick on specific users, almost like they’re looking for any excuse to call them out or push them away. I guess it’s just part of the online dynamic sometimes, but it still feels a bit uncalled for. It’s one thing to disagree on a topic, but it’s another thing entirely when it starts feeling like a coordinated effort to make someone feel unwelcome. Maybe I’m being too sensitive about it, but it strikes me as a bit much. Regarding point 13, we have a textbook case of constant ad hominem attacks happening here. I’d like to kindly ask the moderators to take a closer look at this behavior.

Jerry Robinson56 said:The real issue here isn't a simple difference of opinion; it's the sheer quality of the trash being posted by users who flat-out deny what is staring them in the face.

Well, here we go again. It feels like we’re circling back to the exact same topic yet again, over and over.
What you—or perhaps someone else entirely—might choose to call... It seems obvious.I mean, there’s always that one person who refuses to see things any other way. To them, it’s just "obvious" that it’s something else entirely, you know? I guess they’re just convinced their version is the only one that makes sense. 🤷
So, at the end of the day, we’re really just looking at a fundamental difference of opinion here, and honestly, I don't think it's about anything else.
That’s really the only issue here. It’s quite interesting, isn't it? It seems like nobody ever has a single grievance with anyone else as long as they're nodding in agreement—even if both parties are completely and utterly wrong. I suppose it’s just easier that way. As long as you're on the same page, you're considered one of the good guys.

I think we can both agree that there is... It seems we have a few "bad actors" on this forum—people who simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
But you... Some of the "bad" forum members who just refuse to acknowledge the obvious. In my eyes, they might just be some kind of... A completely different story altogether. It’s all about perspective, I suppose—seeing things through the eyes of someone who just doesn't process the world quite the same way I do.

Let's take an even more extreme example—for instance, someone claiming that the Earth is round and insisting that it's just a fact. It seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?I suspect we can all agree that one wouldn't make such a claim without having some sort of reasoning behind it, wouldn't you?
I suppose someone else will come along and insist that the world is flat, and they’ll be perfectly content with that notion too. to It’s pretty obvious, really; he wouldn't have even made that claim if there weren't some underlying reason for it.
I have absolutely no intention of sparking a debate or getting bogged down in any arguments regarding the shape of the Earth. That’s not my goal here at all. It was simply the first example that came to mind, and I wanted to point out how two different sides can look at the exact same thing and interpret it in completely opposite ways—to the point where both parties feel entirely certain they are right. Truth and obviousness. I suppose I should probably mention my own... Beliefs.
Personally, I don't have any issue with someone claiming that the Earth is flat—if that’s truly what they believe, then by all means, they should feel free to say so.
Look, even if I find myself disagreeing, I certainly have no intention of mocking him, making fun of his ideas, or being disrespectful. If I genuinely believe there might be some merit to what he’s claiming, then I suppose I should give it the consideration it deserves. I suppose I'll have to ask him to provide some actual arguments.If he decides to attach them, I’ll take a look. Honestly, it doesn't really matter whether I end up agreeing with him or not; he’s entitled to his own perspective, just as I am to mine. That said, I don't see any reason for us to start tearing each other down or resorting to insults just because we have different views.
If his claims strike me as completely nonsensical—or if he’s developed a reputation for being outright rude, arrogant, or dismissive—I simply won't bother. If someone spends their time insulting others, belittling points, or just constant trolling, I have no intention of asking them for arguments. Honestly, there's no point in reading those posts or wasting my breath commenting on them. Why should I waste my precious time on that? Is it completely worthless?

Instead of exhausting yourselves by trying to retrain people who simply refuse to see things differently, wouldn't it be better for everyone involved—including ourselves—to just stop wasting our breath? I mean, maybe it’s more productive to simply stop giving their statements any real weight at all.
Because as long as you continue to give any real weight to what they say, By giving their statements such immediate weight, you’re essentially handing them all the authority on a silver platter. I suppose it's easy to fall into that trap, but it feels like we're automatically validating everything they say without much thought. Even though you all seem hell-bent on denying it every single time we talk...

Jerry Robinson56 Asks:
Look, speaking from the perspective of someone who’s spent a lifetime in this field—and I suppose I have quite a bit of experience under my belt at this point—it seems like an undeniable fact that raw food is really the alpha and the omega of nutrition. I mean, it’s just fundamentally natural, isn't it?
I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and I suspect that, at their core, most organisms are primarily designed to thrive on raw food. It seems like a fundamental biological reality, though perhaps one we tend to overlook in our modern, processed world.
It’s honestly baffling how you can find yourself surrounded by these social climbers—people who just latch onto anyone else to feed their own nonsense—only to have them slap one of their labels on you as if they’re doing you a favor. It’s a strange kind of false support, I suppose.

Regarding the labeling and those responsible for sticking them on things, I have to admit, it actually stings a little bit. 🥳
Unfortunately, these "clingers" seem to be hovering around everyone on this forum, and trying to pin down a definition for nonsense would be just as difficult as defining what counts as obvious.
That said, there’s no denying that a handful of people visit this specific thread solely to vent their frustrations (much like they do with any alternative lifestyle topic); they clearly lack any real understanding of the subject matter and don't have even a single day of experience with this type of diet. They aren't actually interested in the topic itself; instead, they seem visibly resentful that it even exists on this forum. They haven't read a single page of a book on the subject, yet they churn out posts with a manic intensity and palpable hatred. Their comments rarely relate to the actual discussion; rather, they seem aimed purely at obstructing the conversation and insulting anyone who actually cares about the topic—not to mention the outright rude trolling.
On a brighter note, there are also individuals who have made truly exceptional contributions to the raw food thread through their deep knowledge, practical experience, and thoughtful explanations. So many people have praised their posts, and many have found genuine help through their useful advice. For those contributors, I have nothing but the highest respect.

I am intentionally withholding specific usernames, but I think it is pretty clear to everyone involved which individuals I am referring to, regardless of which "side" they claim to represent.

Ethan Brooks59 said:I completely agree with Jerry Robinson56 that lately, the entire alternative section has turned into a total swamp—a smelly mess being polluted by certain individuals whose posts never actually touch upon the topics at hand, instead devolving into nothing but petty sarcasm and off-topic rambling.

So, look, if you’re thinking of someone who has amassed 35,000 posts yet finds themselves under a ban constantly (I wonder how many they would have if they weren't? 🤦), and their posts rarely exceed a few dozen words—often just a handful—they serve as the perfect example of what you're describing. 👍
There isn't a single constructive post to be found in the whole alternative section, and pretty much everything written there consists of insults, complete off-topic nonsense, or trolling. EVERYTHING.
I agree, and it seems quite obvious that people like that are deliberately trying to turn the alternative section into a landfill.
It really isn't surprising to see in the signatures that half the forum is on ignore lists.

Broadly speaking, I think your general direction of thought is quite sound 👍, though I have a feeling that, by some strange twist of fate, you might not be perceiving the textbook examples and caricatures of trolls, the literal definitions of trolling, at all.
My apologies if I'm mistaken. 🙂

The only point where I can't find common ground with you, or anyone else, is the idea that it is ever acceptable to label someone's statements as stupidity.
Think about it; some people never do that, while others do it constantly. 🤔
To me, that feels no different than calling that one particular forum user an idiot; I don't see the distinction.
After all, only a fool would write something foolish, wouldn't they?
It seems clear to me that people resort to calling statements "stupid" out of fear or cowardice, simply because they are too intimidated to call that specific user an idiot directly. Some people get genuinely furious and end up in a near-heart-attack state because they aren't allowed to tell someone exactly what they think or express their dislike due to a difference of opinion, so they settle for labeling those statements as stupid; it becomes their vent, the only thing they feel capable of doing.

If we disagree with something, we ought to explain why using arguments, rather than just rudely dismissing it as stupid without any reasoning.
I believe you'll agree that doing so makes us no better than him—in fact, it arguably makes us worse, doesn't it?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and again—I entirely agree that it would be appropriate to present arguments and sources to back up a claim, especially if someone asks for them.
I agree that no one here is obligated to provide explanations; it's all a matter of goodwill and, above all, decency and civility, but still, if someone is able to present a point, and someone else fundamentally disagrees (and is capable of explaining why), then it would be fair for the person who made the initial claim to elaborate and provide arguments.
And whatever you do, please don't disparage someone for presenting an argument, because then you've truly hit rock bottom. 👎
You asked for arguments—you got them.
If you don't like them or you disagree—well, that's your problem; the other side probably wouldn't have agreed with you anyway.
But they did present an argument.

That’s why I feel the moderators are actually doing a pretty solid job overall. It seems like everyone is constantly looking for some kind of bias in their own favor, trying to shut down anyone who doesn't see things exactly their way. I imagine it’s incredibly difficult to moderate this place effectively while keeping everyone perfectly happy.
Because of that, I consider moderator impartiality to be the most critical factor.
Most of the discussions on alternative platforms handle this reasonably well, though a smaller portion of them is a complete disaster.

And let's be honest here—have you noticed that we're sliding back into a pattern where people start trading barbs just because of differing opinions? It feels like personal squabbles and disagreements from elsewhere are being dragged into this space, which, naturally, leads absolutely nowhere.
After all, this thread was opened with a different intention entirely.

@Nicole Johnson20/">@@Nicole Johnson20
Maybe I shouldn't be sticking my nose in here—I might end up getting a warning or something—but since I don't have much to lose, I suppose I'll take the risk...
My intention is simply to offer some commentary on the points you've raised from my own perspective.

I absolutely agree that forum topics should ideally be moderated by someone who actually possesses expertise in those specific areas—someone who is genuinely fascinated by them and lives that lifestyle. However, I believe the most critical factor is that moderation remains fair and impartial, strictly adhering to the forum rules and ensuring those rules are applied equally to everyone, regardless of their niche.
Ever since Michelle Robinson joined the alternative section, I've actually noticed improvements in that direction; honestly, things used to be quite messy, significantly worse than they are now.
I won't get into whether Michelle Robinson is personally interested in the alternative scene—I suspect she isn't particularly invested—but I don't see that as a negative thing. From what I've observed over the last few months, she handles the other half of her responsibilities quite well and stays professional.
Just to be clear, while I think there is room for improvement, compared to one third of the moderators in the alternative section, she is basically a saint. 😁

Without naming names, everything you just listed perfectly describes another individual who also moderates the alternative section. This person has virtually no connection to the alternative community, yet it’s obvious they try to discredit and belittle others whenever they get the chance. They almost never issue bans to trolls, and as for their sense of fairness... well, I won't go there, especially since I was the one who started the only thread I've ever opened on this entire forum regarding that very issue.

So, while I agree that the situation could and should be better, I also remember when things were much, much worse.
From where I'm sitting, I think you're right on one hand, but perhaps mistaken on the other. At least, that's how I see it.
I hope nobody takes this the wrong way. 🙂

placidhawk21 said:So, apparently, you aren't allowed to mention auras in natural science anymore?!!

By that logic, if we were truly running an Alternative forum, they shouldn't tolerate anything that doesn't look "alternative," nor should they allow anything that actually supports classic dogmas!

To put it bluntly, the moderators over at Alternative aren't doing their jobs properly, and it seems to be the same story across other similar boards... though, of course, there are exceptions! 🙂

I couldn't agree more, and I’ll back this sentiment quite emphatically. 👍
Because, honestly, we’ve reached such an absurd point where people are actually complaining about stories of healing being shared on the alternative treatment subforum (specifically regarding the raw food thread)?!
My dear friends, I simply don't understand what else one is supposed to discuss on an alternative treatment forum. Horse racing?

I’m with placidhawk21 on this; I really think we need to tighten up the criteria on the Alternative section. Just like any other topic or subforum here, we shouldn't allow off-topic chatter, and we absolutely must shut down provocation, mockery, general trolling, and—let's not even get started on—straight-up insults.

Before a final decision is made and the thread gets locked, I have one question for the supermoderator: in your opinion, was this specific post justified in receiving a warning for trolling?

If we are going to apply stricter standards, then I suppose the answer is yes.
That said, I would kindly ask that you take a look at all those problematic posts I've compiled in my first two messages—it will become crystal clear that every single one of them definitely deserves a warning.

Carol Lopez23 said:To put it bluntly, this is the quintessential essence of these "alternative groups." One might just call it organized trolling.

Elizabeth Jackson—there is simply no point in us dissecting these posts all over again. It is obvious to you that we will remain at an impasse, and that every response to a response will merely perpetuate the exact same arguments already presented. I have no desire to repeat myself, as I have already laid out my position clearly.

And I’ve said what I have to say.
Whether we agree or not is honestly irrelevant. At the end of the day, the only thing that actually matters regarding the moderators is... I really think you should try to follow the forum rules more consistently and, more importantly, apply them fairly to everyone. From where I’m sitting, it doesn't seem like that's exactly what you're doing most of the time.
I have to agree, and honestly, I completely get where you're coming from. Pushing any further just wouldn't make sense at this point. It’s pretty obvious to everyone watching—and I think you can feel it too—that you've been backed into a corner by the arguments presented. At this stage, trying to double down would probably just end up discrediting you even more than you already are. Maybe it's best to just let it rest.
Instead of digging yourself even deeper into this hole—which, if I’m being honest, was only avoided because northernpilot2 stepped in to pull you out—it might have been more dignified if you had simply owned up to your mistakes.
We’re all human, after all, and anyone can trip up from time to time. But I suppose there’s a certain kind of strength found only in those who have the guts to actually own up to their mistakes.
Honestly, and I mean this with the very best of intentions, I truly hope that one day you find the strength to be that resilient. 😉

I’d like to offer a gentle word of caution to my fellow forum members—perhaps we should all just slow down and take a moment to think this through. Pay close attention. I wonder what two specific goals briskbison55 is actually aiming for here?
He’s intentionally trying to divert attention from the core issue and dilute the conversation. The focus shouldn't be on him; it should be on... Moderating the BAT kolo..
2. Find a brilliant opportunity to satisfy that compulsive urge to churn out posts, thereby checking off your daily quota.
Please make sure you read this all the way to the end. This is it..

At the request of the supermoderator, I could easily provide dozens of examples where briskbison55 has blatantly and intentionally twisted or misinterpreted other people's posts. However, I suspect that after reading these recent comments—and perhaps even looking back at those threads regarding raw food, which he really ought to review—everything should be perfectly clear to him by now.
And it seems Ryan Gomez4, acting as a moderator, has a pretty clear view of how things are being handled around here.

Just as a little something to ponder—here’s a quick comparison involving animals:

briskbison55 said:It seems like things were actually quite peaceful here before a few of you decided to show up. parrot I’ve actually encountered a few aeronautical engineers who walked around acting like they were absolute authorities on the subject, all while reading through your posts and realizing just how little anyone here understands the actual fundamentals.

Honestly, calling people scumbags—or even just using those colorful terms for people who are essentially nothing more than biological breeding grounds for parasites—is probably a bit redundant. It’s almost too obvious to say.
The post hasn't been flagged yet, much like several of the other problematic users I’ve pointed out, but I suppose I’ll leave that decision to the supermoderator—just as I am leaving the matter regarding why I opened this thread up to their discretion.

northernpilot2, personally, I think the idea of Alternative getting another moderator alongside bat and Ryan Gomez4 is a solid one. That being said, I want to emphasize and kindly ask that we look for someone who genuinely cares about this field—someone with actual knowledge, hard facts, and real-world experience. We need someone who, through their deep understanding of the subject, will be eager to help other members, share insights, swap advice, and actively engage in discussions , much like how Ryan Gomez4 used to do.
In my view, she did an excellent job and absolutely should continue her work precisely because she knows so much, lives this lifestyle, and was always right there in the thick of things, helping everyone out.
As for Carol Lopez23, I’ve already said everything I have to say on the matter and I'm sticking to it, though I’ll certainly respect your decision since there isn't much I can do to change it 😉. My hope is that the situation over at Alternative will finally start looking up.

If I could make one more suggestion, it would be to issue partial bans to those members who have been constantly and visibly provoking people or trolling the raw food and Chemtrails threads without ever contributing anything else useful. They haven't provided a single constructive post to any of these topics , which I assume you could verify yourself just by glancing at their posting history.
Specifically, I’m thinking of the user briskbison55.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Well, you actually managed to make two mistakes right there:
Someone is playing dumb here—you don't just hand out red cards like that!
Someone decides to give him a little warning about it, and in return, he gets hit with a direct reprimand. He basically insulted him by suggesting his own mother should have had more sense when she gave birth to him. Seriously, you’re at it again—just completely ignoring the facts!
Pure, unabashed bias!

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

:

Mirko_M said:I can only come to one conclusion here: your mother must have been incredibly dim-witted.

So, the post above doesn't exactly count toward my permanent record, but this one right here certainly does:
I’ve been looking over the discussions on Reddit lately, and I have to say, some of the arguments being thrown around regarding the recent findings are quite fascinating, if a bit chaotic. It seems like everyone has a theory, which I suppose is part of the fun, but there is a certain level of nuance that often gets lost in the shuffle. Regarding the points made by Elizabeth Jackson, I think she might be overlooking a crucial variable in the data. While her perspective is certainly passionate, it feels a little bit like we're ignoring the broader context provided by researchers like Mercola. If you look at the way the environmental impact is being measured, it isn't just a simple linear progression. There are layers to this that require a more measured approach than what we're seeing in most of the comment sections. Then there’s the matter of the theories surrounding Chemtrails ii. I know it’s a polarizing topic, and people tend to get very heated, but I find myself wondering if we aren't getting distracted by the sensationalism. Maybe there is some truth to the concerns being raised, but I suspect the reality is much more mundane—and perhaps even more complex—than the extreme scenarios being proposed. It's easy to jump to conclusions when the headlines are designed to provoke, but I prefer to wait for more concrete evidence before committing to a side. I noticed Alexander Thompson mentioned something similar earlier, suggesting that the institutional response has been somewhat sluggish. I can see where he's coming from; there is definitely a sense that the official channels are playing catch-up with the actual scientific discourse happening online. It’s a bit of a strange dynamic, isn't it? You have these massive organizations trying to maintain control over a narrative while the sheer volume of independent information makes that almost impossible. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should probably take a breath and look at the bigger picture. It’s tempting to dive headfirst into the most radical interpretations, but I think there's value in staying a bit more skeptical—not just of the institutions, but of the fringe theories themselves. It’s all about finding that middle ground, though I realize that’s a pretty difficult thing to achieve in an era of such intense polarization.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Where exactly?

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Why even ask? Do you think those into alternative theories aren't treated the same as any other Reddit user?
What I said was— Forum members.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Most of the sanctions were pretty much aimed at the alternative crowd; they didn't really go after the trolls, except for those occasional times when Ryan Gomez4 would step in.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Can you provide some actual proof—like a link—showing where they’re claiming this on their own forums, or is this just a complete fabrication?
And does that really serve as an excuse to allow the disparagement of the Mexican people?

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Well, here we go again—another question for the supermods. Do you honestly believe that someone with such narrow-minded views—someone who refuses to entertain even a single perspective other than their own—could ever actually function as an objective moderator?

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

I honestly can't wrap my head around how you can just sit there and let a Reddit user call other people on this board "popes." It’s a bit much, don't you think?
If you're okay with it, would you mind if I started calling you "papče" from now on?
Is everyone on the forum here?

Carol Lopez23 said:Is there truly such a thing as genuine education regarding Chemtrails, or is it merely an exercise in spreading misinformation? One might wonder if we are witnessing a sincere attempt to enlighten the public, or if it is simply a way to circulate baseless theories under the guise of academic inquiry. When we consider the vast landscape of information available today, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between rigorous scientific study and mere speculation designed to stir unrest. It is much like trying to navigate a dense fog without a compass; without a clear, verifiable foundation, one can easily lose their way in a sea of unproven claims. 🤔 Is there an actual academic study supporting this? Or perhaps a specific curriculum at a university? While I certainly don't claim to be an expert in aerodynamics or meteorology, I find myself perfectly capable of listening to and accepting the explanations provided by those who actually hold those credentials—all without succumbing to the paranoia that we are witnessing some grand "global conspiracy against humanity," which is one of those theories being pushed around quite frequently (and, frankly, lacks any real logic). It seems to me that you proponents of alternative theories tend to do the exact opposite, so I am simply pointing you toward common sense.

It seems to me that the Forum member is merely attempting to dodge the core issue by scattering various empty platitudes—specifically those little memes, paranoid theories, and random clips you find all over YouTube.

By the way, those images are still available for anyone who wishes to view them, so please feel free to take a look and verify everything for yourselves.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Is this being deemed irrelevant based on the established rules of Reddit, or is it merely a reflection of your own subjective viewpoints?

Just to offer my perspective on this matter—regarding both of them. If one examines their entire body of work, the truth becomes abundantly clear; anyone with eyes to see will certainly recognize it.

Regarding nutritional recommendations, there really isn't any controversy to be found here, nor have posts of this nature ever been removed or flagged by moderators. 🤷

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
That assessment appears to be incorrect.
The forum member utilizes a verbatim quote from:
The University in Washington, D.C.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
An Examination of Rousseau’s Critique regarding Enlightenment Ideals
PROGRESS: THE THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Academic Mentor: Raul Raunić, Ph.D.

A verbatim quotation from the post made by the Reddit user can be found on the third page.
The comment posted by Forumašev had absolutely no connection whatsoever to the theories proposed by A. Hitler.
It appears that one fellow on Reddit was quoting the work of Rousseauov’s critique.
It would be quite an oversight to assume, simply due to a lack of information, that there is any connection to Hitler here. Furthermore, if one observes closely, briskbison55’s posts touch upon Nazism on several different occasions, sometimes through subtle implications and at other times with more direct assertions.
It appears we are dealing with a situation involving a direct and intentional insult, one that mirrors the rhetoric of hate speech and the genocidal constructs seen in the Final Solution under Hitler and the Wehrmacht. This individual persists in such behavior even after being cautioned by other users on Reddit not to recklessly imply connections to that "Austrian painter," an issue that briskbison55 also raised just a few posts ago without any clear justification.
The NATO entity, acting like 7 Nationarmy, went even further by referencing Hitler’s "final solutions" with clear intent to offend, rather than out of mere ignorance or an accidental *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. Given what you've pointed out, wouldn't it be wise to acknowledge your error regarding the poor moderation here?

I am specifically addressing the post by 7 Nationarmy; from what I can gather, he wasn't quoting anyone outside of this platform, nor did I get the impression he was invoking Nazism. As I previously noted, the reasoning is flawed, and in response to Jason Grant—perhaps 7 Nationarmy isn't aware that Jason Grant simply transcribed that from a scholarly work, given that no source was cited)

We could also delve into the segment where he claims: "Liberation from the shackles of ignorance is only possible through science which will ensure progress toward ever better
forms of social organization," though I suspect that might be going a bit too far. 😁

That specific post doesn't warrant a penalty at all; the quote provided is nothing more than nonsense and sweeping generalizations (and really, does it even require translation?)

The rest has already been addressed above.

So, you feel the need to repeat yourself because apparently, being told "you don't understand" is just part of the process?
To be clear, the truth is that briskbison55 wasn't quoting anyone outside of this platform, nor is he actually invoking Nazism.
In an intentional attempt to be offensive, he targets other users who have absolutely nothing to do with Nazi ideology—in fact, they are quite the opposite, focusing on knowledge, health, and lived experience in an effort to help people, which is diametrically opposed to the genocidal ideology of Nazism (and mind you, we are talking about a thread on nutrition and raw food), —he constantly belittles and mocks them.
First, briskbison55 implies Nazi ideologies, then receives a warning, and following that, doubles down with even harsher insults, as I’ve already described—accusing such posts of being "on the trail of Hitler's final solution."
It seems you were trying to soften such a heavy accusation with your sort of relativistic, nihilistic philosophy, which really just shows how little you care about proper moderation.
Remember, Carol Lopez23, briskbison55 has brought up Hitler before in discussions about diet.
Without any provocation whatsoever. We were talking about apples and dandelion root, but a jerk is still a jerk.
Do you want proof?

Look at this:

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

And your response is:

Carol Lopez23 said:Is there truly such a thing as genuine education regarding Chemtrails, or is it merely an exercise in spreading misinformation? One might wonder if we are witnessing a sincere attempt to enlighten the public, or if it is simply a way to circulate baseless theories under the guise of academic inquiry. When we consider the vast landscape of information available today, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between rigorous scientific study and mere speculation designed to stir unrest. It is much like trying to navigate a dense fog without a compass; without a clear, verifiable foundation, one can easily lose their way in a sea of unproven claims. 🤔 Is there an actual academic study supporting this? Or perhaps a specific curriculum at a university? While I certainly don't claim to be an expert in aerodynamics or meteorology, I find myself perfectly capable of listening to and accepting the explanations provided by those who actually hold those credentials—all without succumbing to the paranoia that we are witnessing some grand "global conspiracy against humanity," which is one of those theories being pushed around quite frequently (and, frankly, lacks any real logic). It seems to me that you proponents of alternative theories tend to do the exact opposite, so I am simply pointing you toward common sense.

It seems to me that the Forum member is merely attempting to dodge the core issue by scattering various empty platitudes—specifically those little memes, paranoid theories, and random clips you find all over YouTube.

By the way, those images are still available for anyone who wishes to view them, so please feel free to take a look and verify everything for yourselves.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Is this being deemed irrelevant based on the established rules of Reddit, or is it merely a reflection of your own subjective viewpoints?

Just to offer my perspective on this matter—regarding both of them. If one examines their entire body of work, the truth becomes abundantly clear; anyone with eyes to see will certainly recognize it.

Regarding nutritional recommendations, there really isn't any controversy to be found here, nor have posts of this nature ever been removed or flagged by moderators. 🤷

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
That assessment appears to be incorrect.
The forum member utilizes a verbatim quote from:
The University in Washington, D.C.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
An Examination of Rousseau’s Critique regarding Enlightenment Ideals
PROGRESS: THE THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Academic Mentor: Raul Raunić, Ph.D.

A verbatim quotation from the post made by the Reddit user can be found on the third page.
The comment posted by Forumašev had absolutely no connection whatsoever to the theories proposed by A. Hitler.
It appears that one fellow on Reddit was quoting the work of Rousseauov’s critique.
It would be quite an oversight to assume, simply due to a lack of information, that there is any connection to Hitler here. Furthermore, if one observes closely, briskbison55’s posts touch upon Nazism on several different occasions, sometimes through subtle implications and at other times with more direct assertions.
It appears we are dealing with a situation involving a direct and intentional insult, one that mirrors the rhetoric of hate speech and the genocidal constructs seen in the Final Solution under Hitler and the Wehrmacht. This individual persists in such behavior even after being cautioned by other users on Reddit not to recklessly imply connections to that "Austrian painter," an issue that briskbison55 also raised just a few posts ago without any clear justification.
The NATO entity, acting like 7 Nationarmy, went even further by referencing Hitler’s "final solutions" with clear intent to offend, rather than out of mere ignorance or an accidental *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. Given what you've pointed out, wouldn't it be wise to acknowledge your error regarding the poor moderation here?

I am specifically addressing the post by 7 Nationarmy; from what I can gather, he wasn't quoting anyone outside of this platform, nor did I get the impression he was invoking Nazism. As I previously noted, the reasoning is flawed, and in response to Jason Grant—perhaps 7 Nationarmy isn't aware that Jason Grant simply transcribed that from a scholarly work, given that no source was cited)

We could also delve into the segment where he claims: "Liberation from the shackles of ignorance is only possible through science which will ensure progress toward ever better
forms of social organization," though I suspect that might be going a bit too far. 😁

That specific post doesn't warrant a penalty at all; the quote provided is nothing more than nonsense and sweeping generalizations (and really, does it even require translation?)

The rest has already been addressed above.

But this one?
Is it not worth a ban when someone calls a fellow user incredibly stupid and highlights it in bold letters???
Is it perfectly fine then if I call you that constantly from now on, along with everyone else here?

As a side note, here is some extra confirmation regarding yesterday's example of a user who also clearly sees what is happening in the raw food thread.
Pay close attention to the post immediately following his and it will be obvious to everyone what I am talking about and which user hasn't made a single constructive post regarding raw food or alternative health.

Anyway, to wrap things up, this statement by Carol says it all.

There, perfect. That's how Carol Lopez23 puts it, super-moderators.moderator alternative - yeah everything he labels as nonsense deserves to be mocked.
And honestly, why are we even surprised that this is the current state of affairs over at alternativa?
I mean, just imagine if I started calling everything my opponents wrote "nonsense," "stupidity," "idiocy," "bullshit," or whatever other label I felt like throwing out there.
What would this community even look like if every single user communicated like this?
What would this site even turn into if all the moderators handled things this way?

I’m asking the supermoderators to please step in and act in the only way that makes sense here!

Carol Lopez23, my grievance and critique regarding your moderation is rooted in the objective state of this community, my own long-standing experience here, the literature I’ve studied concerning the topics I write about (particularly regarding raw food), the expertise shared by others on these subjects, and concrete facts and results.
The issue isn't just that you approach these matters with skepticism—starting from a baseline that dismisses things you don't even fully grasp—but rather that you mockingly ridicule and deny all alternative topics and anything that doesn't align with your personal worldview and perspective.
While many alternative subjects haven't been scientifically codified yet, there is a valid argument that lived experience is a legitimate source of knowledge, one that defines the scope, possibilities, and boundaries of what we know.
Nihil est in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu.

Certain segments have actually attempted scientific explanation—take neuro-nutrition, for instance, which studies how specific foods influence behavior and emotion. These branches of science are still in their infancy, making empirical conclusions incredibly valuable. Yet, you consistently make a sport of mocking them, much like you mock the experiential verification of numerous users who confirmed significant health improvements through dietary changes, only to see them leave the platform after being subjected to endless terror and troll attacks, all with your blessing and a visible sense of self-satisfaction.

Carol Lopez23, your assumptions, perceptions, and personal beliefs regarding alternative topics don't stem from experience; they are products of so-called "pure thought." Consequently, your truths and insights are merely a priori mental constructs. Instead of engaging, you employ thought manipulation and deflection, steering the conversation away from the central point to focus on trivialities.
Because of this, I truly believe the super-moderators will reach the only possible fair and just decision.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

It is actually quite the opposite.
You deleted the ones that didn't suit your agenda, among others.
There were countless examples of deleted posts where people were openly and crudely insulting, which were rushed into deletion "so no one would see them," effectively saving the troll from receiving a warning card (I actually wrote to a super-moderator about this last year in my very first report).
I regret that I didn't "screenshot" them back then; I honestly never imagined things would escalate to this point, but if I had, it would represent an enormous embarrassment and a total checkmate for you right now.
However, a far larger number of posts—those involving blatant and obvious violations of the rules—were neither deleted nor penalized. I want to emphasize this: they were reported multiple times.
At the request of the super-moderators, I would be more than happy to list many such posts from the alternative sections.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Do you have a single post in the alternative section that looks remotely similar to, say, a post by the moderator Fish1968 in astrology?
Exampleposta Well, good morning to our moderator Fish1968. I just plucked this randomly from the last page of the alternative section—it’s all about astrology.
Even here, we have the moderator Fish1968 actively jumping into the fray, stepping in to explain things and actually participating in the discussion.
Trolls like briskbison55 and the rest of that crowd—the ones you clearly seem to champion—wouldn't last even a single day in a real environment.
Why?
To the moderation team—thank you for keeping things running smoothly!
If they actually have the guts, let them try!
Let them give it a shot over there, too. Transurfing. This particular thread is actually managed by some pretty excellent moderators. Even though I find myself on a completely different page when it comes to their actual stances and opinions, I have to admit... They’re just doing their jobs, and they're doing them quite thoroughly, if you ask me!
Your bias and lack of objectivity are the complete opposite of what they should be!
It’s not just that you aren't actually contributing anything to this discussion; you’re actively stifling it. You’re obstructing the conversation and quite frankly, driving away the very people who actually have expertise and the willingness to share it. I mean, some of them have already made themselves known here—and I know there are plenty more like them—but they seemingly have no idea that this thread is even open for discussion because of the atmosphere you're creating.
I will gladly submit at least 20 to 30 posts to the supermoderators upon request—specifically those where I am being particularly circuitous and cynical in my mockery, whether I'm targeting the thread itself or some other user who is attempting to write about it in a constructive manner.
After a post like that, you can usually expect an even more aggressive onslaught from the trolls—those folks who feel personally threatened by what you've written, naturally—though they’ll likely stay completely unhinged and incoherent.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

I have absolutely no intention of getting dragged into a debate about menstruation, nor will I allow you to derail this discussion just to vent about your questionable moderation skills.
I'm just going to ask you—is it...? I suppose I should probably offer my own little take on the whole subject of menstruation, though I realize how subjective this all is. It’s one of those things that people tend to approach from wildly different angles—some see it through a strictly medical lens, others through a more holistic or even spiritual one, and then there are those who just view it as an annoying monthly inconvenience to be managed with Ibuprofen and a heating pad. Personally, I've always felt that the modern conversation around it feels a bit... sanitized? Or perhaps just overly clinical. We talk about hormones and cycles like we're reading a technical manual for a piece of machinery, rather than acknowledging the profound biological reality of what's actually happening. There's a certain rhythm to it that I think we've lost touch with in our fast-paced, highly processed society. Maybe it's just me, but I suspect that if we looked closer at how our bodies interact with nutrition and environmental factors, we might find a much more nuanced understanding of why cycles fluctuate or feel so disruptive. I'm not saying there isn't a massive role for traditional medicine, but I do wonder if we've perhaps leaned too heavily on quick fixes while ignoring the broader physiological picture. It's a complex dance of biology, and I guess I've always found it fascinating how much our lifestyle choices might influence that delicate balance. Regardless, it's clearly a deeply personal experience for everyone, and there's no single way to "correctly" feel about it. ...or whatever else comes to mind....the reason why that is. It seems the moderator is actually permitting personal attacks against this individual, essentially taking an open stance alongside those who are doing the insulting.?

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

We really can't have a productive conversation if you’re operating under the deep-seated conviction that... These are exclusively my own personal views, thoughts, and my vision for the world—consider this my personal manifesto for moderation purposes.
That’s exactly what led us to this point, and honestly, you’re just proving that your moderation style is biased and completely unfair. It seems they aren't even bothering to follow the community guidelines anymore; instead, they’re just operating entirely based on their own personal beliefs and agendas.

Look, you’re more than welcome to hold onto your own convictions—honestly, nobody is stopping you from doing that. But just because you feel strongly doesn't give you the right to belittle anyone else who sees things differently. It’s the same logic as moderation; you shouldn't be applying biased rules based on your personal beliefs, especially when those beliefs are just as subjective to you as someone else's views are to them.

I would like to kindly ask the supermoderators to please take a look at this. We absolutely cannot lose sight of this one specific detail that keeps surfacing in Carol Lopez23's recent posts. It's becoming impossible to ignore.Honestly, if you want the ultimate proof—and let’s be real, it’s practically a formal admission—of how biased and subjective the moderation here has become, look no further. It serves as a glaring guarantee that this exact style of oversight will just keep happening unless we make a firm decision to remove them from their position.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

I have to say, I find myself agreeing with that sentiment regarding your posts—and, frankly, regarding the troll posts you seem so eager to champion. It extends even to your entire approach to "moderation" here.
Honestly, a post like yours would only fly if you were dealing with an incredibly incompetent moderator—someone exactly like yourself. Any other moderator who actually follows the rules would probably just toss this straight into the trash. I think they've made a mistake.And perhaps, it might even be permanent.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

If you're up for it, feel free to drop some links to my previous posts where I clearly violated the site rules but somehow managed to avoid getting banned?
You kept pointing back to my problematic posts—the ones you claim haven't been flagged or removed—yet you weren't even able to cite a single one. 😉
Maybe it’s because if you actually lay them all out, it just becomes that final, damning piece of evidence—the proverbial period at the end of a sentence proving you weren't doing your job in the first place.

If someone happens to be violating... Forum Rules If any of those points are actually proven true, then we might as well just pack it all up and call it a day.
As far as I can tell, there isn't actually anything in the community guidelines that defines "patronizing" or "spouting nonsense." So, I suspect we might be looking at your own personal interpretation here—or perhaps you're just making up your own set of rules on the fly to justify how you "moderate."

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Who exactly is that?I guess I should start by saying that things are feeling a bit different lately. I’ve been sitting here thinking about how much has shifted, and honestly, it feels like we’re all just trying to find our footing in a world that seems to be moving faster than any of us expected. Maybe it’s just me, but there’s this sense that the ground beneath us isn't quite as solid as it used to be. It’s interesting, really—how we can go from feeling so certain about everything to suddenly questioning the very foundations of what we thought was true. I don't mean to sound overly dramatic, but there's definitely a weight to it all, wouldn't you agree? It's almost as if we're collectively holding our breath, waiting for the next big shift to happen. Anyway, I suppose that's just my take on it."?
People are throwing all sorts of things out there; you’ve got some folks presenting established expert consensus, while others are voicing perspectives from the alternative scene. Then there are plenty of people just sharing their own personal takes based on the information they've gathered—which is their right, just as it's yours to have your own opinion—and many more are simply recounting their own lived experiences.
As for the rest, I really have no intention of getting dragged into a debate about various theories or how much money is being made off them. I won't sit here and accept you intentionally diluting the subject and steering the conversation away from the actual point.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

So, am I acting as the judge here too?
In addition to my previous comments, I’d like to draw the special attention of the supermoderators to this specific post, and I have a direct question for them:
Is it even possible—or perhaps more importantly, is it even permissible—for someone who, besides everything mentioned above... personal perspectives So, I’ve been sitting here thinking about this, and I can't help but wonder: what exactly is that one glaring, insurmountable obstacle that keeps making moderation such an uphill battle? It seems like there's always something standing in the way, something that just makes the whole process feel fundamentally flawed or impossible to get right. I guess we could look at it from a few different angles, but honestly, it feels like there's a massive gap between intention and reality that just can't be bridged. Maybe it's the sheer scale of it, or perhaps it's something deeper within the structure itself. What do you all think? He’s openly calling for and supporting violence against anyone with a different opinion—literally advocating for physical assault—and we're supposed to believe he's being an objective moderator? I mean, seriously?
Well, there you have it. Now that the boxing up is finally done, I suppose all we can do is brace ourselves for the inevitable beating...
The evidence:

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Just one more mistake in a long string of them. You still end up handing out a penalty, which only serves to confirm that you didn't exactly follow the protocol.
So, if I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting that my profile picture—the one with the sheep on it—is somehow my own fault? Well, I suppose if we're playing that game, then what about this one... Directly addressing a fellow member. I guess there isn't much to say here, though I suppose even a single word can carry its own weight if you look at it the right way. It’s a bit brief, isn't it? Perhaps there was more intended, or maybe it's just one of those moments where everything is left unsaid. Either way, I'll be here if anyone actually wants to dive into a real conversation. Has it even been assigned yet?
Don't you feel even just a tiny bit ashamed?

Honestly, I really hope the supermoderators take a close look at all these details. If they actually pay attention, it should become pretty obvious why someone like this simply isn't fit to moderate an alternative community—and frankly, I’d be just as worried if they were tasked with overseeing anything else.

Nice and northernpilot2, thank you both for taking the time to respond.

northernpilot2, I find myself agreeing with your assessment. It feels like there's an attempt here to resolve this using the path of least resistance—the most painless route possible—which, if my past experiences are any indication, doesn't exactly promise much in the way of actual improvement.
In my view, stricter moderation standards and a rigorous adherence to the forum rules should have been implemented a long time ago equally for everyone , which would have prevented a situation like this from ever arising in the first place.
I believe—and I suspect anyone watching this would agree—that moderation cannot, and should not, be handled so subjectively. One shouldn't moderate based on whether content fits a specific worldview, dismissing anything that doesn't align with their personal vision as mere idiocy, nonsense, and stupidity or simply moderating according to one's own personal convictions .
As long as things continue to be moderated this way, we aren't going to see any progress.

Just as a reminder, I’ve personally reached out to you directly twice before regarding the poor moderation surrounding the BAT kolo, where I also presented a literal mountain of evidence.
Some measures were taken, and there were some minor shifts for the better, but they were incredibly short-lived.
Before long, everything reverted to the old ways, and over time, the situation actually worsened. That’s evident from the examples I’ve provided, and I should point out that these are just the most recent instances; nearly 90% of them date back only within the last two or three months.
If necessary, I can certainly provide many more examples from earlier periods.
That is precisely why I’ve filed this complaint: because this has been dragging on forever and is a constant issue; it's really just a question of how intense it gets.
Believe me, I wouldn't dream of filing a complaint like this or wasting my time—or yours—digging through all these contentious posts (even though they aren't hard to find) if there wasn't a truly justified reason for doing so.

While I’d love to be wrong, if the situation regarding the moderators remains unchanged, I am quite certain that this "stricter moderation" will be applied only briefly before everything quickly slides right back to how it was.
And if that happens, what then? Are we just going to tighten the moderation criteria again? 😉

One more thing... when you speak about breaking the rules, you only seem to focus on crude insults (though Nice also mentions ad hominem attacks ). But what about the incessant spam, off-topic chatter, and those mocking, rude, and provocative posts posted by the very same group of members (led primarily by briskbison55 and Biljka112) that clearly aim to stir up arguments and disrupt the flow of discussion across various topics in the alternative section?
briskbison55 hasn't contributed a single constructive post regarding raw food, Chemtrails, or many other topics in the alternative section.
It’s a similar story with Biljka112—constant poking and provoking of those with differing views, just in a slightly more sophisticated and less overtly obnoxious way than briskbison55.
Are there truly no warnings or sanctions for spam, off-topic posting, provoking interlocutors, or bickering?
From what I can see in the forum rules (specifically points 4, 11, 12, 13, and 15), there absolutely should be.
And according to this as well.

?

Finally, I have one last question that is closely tied to this whole matter.
I only noticed this a bit later.
If I may ask—and I believe other users participating in the alternative section would also be interested—how did that conclude, and what were the specific decisions and actions taken by the super-moderators regarding that issue?

First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

Mirko_M said:I can only conclude that someone’s parents failed them miserably at birth.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

briskbison55 said:over in America, the air is loaded with various substances that cloud people's reason and logic

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

briskbison55 said:HE turned it back on me, accusing me of eating dogs, just like you and all the other fools keep telling me I eat corpses.

briskbison55 said:Did you recognize yourself in my post? I suppose I went a bit too far when I called that person an idiot. Who on earth would suggest that I eat dogs? If you still actually believe that about me, then maybe you’re just choosing to accept it—or perhaps you’ll decide to be a bit more careful with your accusations in the future?

briskbison55 said:It honestly disgusts me when someone decides to derail a serious conversation by making up ridiculous claims about people eating dogs. If you aren't capable of maintaining even a basic level of decency—and frankly, injecting such mindless nonsense isn't considered polite or permitted on this platform—then you should just move along.

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

Biljka112 said:From an airplane, you can really see just how much stupidity and lack of coordination is happening down there.

Biljka112 said:I honestly can't tell if your eyesight is failing you or if you’re just being plain foolish.
This cell phone video is essentially a masterclass in human stupidity.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

...and the continuation...

Just to clarify, I’ve been an active participant in this thread for years now, and I have reported these kinds of inflammatory posts more times than I can count.
Carol Lopez23 didn't get banned. I don't think I've ever actually had a single post of mine reported. I mean, they didn't even bother to give a member like that a warning.
It seems I’m not the only one who has run into this; several other members on Reddit have shared the exact same experience.
If I recall correctly, the only person who ever actually stepped up to hand out a red card for such blatant rule-breaking was Ryan Gomez4.
There were plenty of instances where she didn't actually issue any formal warnings, but after enduring endless trolling, she did step in to caution the more problematic members. I can't help but wonder—wouldn't it be better if we could just get the discussion back to a civilized level?

Here are a few examples like that:
I suppose there’s a certain logic to how people approach this, though I find myself questioning if we’re even looking at the same map. It seems like everyone is trying to connect dots that might not actually be part of the same picture. Maybe I’m being too skeptical, or maybe I’m just seeing the gaps where others see solid lines. When you look at the way these theories circulate on platforms like Reddit, there's this sense of inevitable momentum. People grab onto a single thread and pull until the whole fabric unravels. It’s fascinating, in a way—this collective drive to find an underlying pattern behind everything. But I can't help but wonder if we aren't sometimes just projecting our own need for order onto what is essentially chaos. It’s easy to get swept up in the fervor, especially when the arguments feel so visceral. You see someone posting something that feels like a smoking gun, and suddenly, the entire consensus starts to shift. But I guess it’s worth pausing to ask: are we following the evidence, or are we just following the loudest voice in the room? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we should be careful about how quickly we embrace a narrative just because it feels satisfyingly complete.
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly feel like we might be overlooking something pretty fundamental here. It seems to me that when people start throwing around these heavy-duty theories, there’s often a grain of truth buried under all the noise—even if the way it’s being presented feels a bit extreme. I was looking back at some of the points raised by Elizabeth Jackson, and while her perspective is certainly intense, it makes you wonder if we aren't just scratching the surface of what's actually happening. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it feels like there’s a disconnect between what the mainstream media tells us and what a lot of people are seeing with their own eyes. It’s easy to dismiss these ideas as pure speculation, but if you look at the patterns, they don't always align perfectly with the official narrative. Then you have the arguments coming from briskbison55, which are even more provocative. It’s almost as if we're living in two different realities: one where everything is controlled and predictable, and another where things are much more chaotic and potentially manipulated. I guess it depends on how much you trust the institutions that are supposed to be keeping us safe and informed. Personally, I tend to lean toward a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s probably safer to assume that nothing is ever quite as simple as they want us to believe. Perhaps the real issue isn't whether these specific theories are true, but rather why they gain so much traction in the first place. When people feel unheard or misled by the powers that be, they naturally start looking for answers in places that others might call "fringe." It’s a bit of a cycle, really. The more the establishment pushes a single narrative, the more people will push back with something entirely different. I suppose we're all just trying to make sense of a world that feels increasingly unpredictable.
I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at this more objectively. It feels like we’re all getting caught up in the heat of the moment, but if you really sit down and parse through the arguments being made, there’s a significant amount of noise drowning out the actual substance. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't be so quick to accept every claim as absolute truth without looking at the underlying data. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to feel that when everyone starts shouting at once, the nuance gets lost. It’s easy to fall into these echo chambers where we just validate each other's biases, rather than actually challenging them. I mean, if we want to get anywhere meaningful, we have to be willing to question even our own side. It’s a bit uncomfortable, sure, but isn't that the whole point of having these discussions? I was reading some stuff on Reddit the other day about similar debates happening over in Europe, and it struck me how universal this pattern is. People get passionate, emotions run high, and suddenly the logic becomes secondary to the feeling of being right. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat frustrating, human tendency. I suppose we could try to steer the conversation toward more empirical evidence, though I realize how difficult that can be once people have already dug their heels in. Just a thought.
I’ve been thinking about this conversation quite a bit lately, and I feel like we need to take a step back to look at the bigger picture. It seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how these systems actually function, which leads people to jump to conclusions that don't quite hold up under scrutiny. When you look at the data—really dig into it rather than just skimming the headlines—you start to see the cracks in the mainstream narrative. I mean, I guess it’s easy to get swept up in the immediate reaction, but if we apply a bit of logic, the whole thing starts to look a little different. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to believe that things are rarely as simple as they are presented on the evening news. It’s interesting, really. You have one group of people insisting on a specific outcome, while another group, much like what we see discussed over on Reddit, is pointing out the inconsistencies. I find myself leaning toward the latter. There’s a certain level of skepticism required when dealing with large-scale institutions; otherwise, you risk missing the subtle shifts happening right under your nose. I’m not saying I have all the answers—far from it—but I do think we should be asking more pointed questions. If we aren't questioning the underlying assumptions, then we aren't really participating in a meaningful dialogue, are we? It feels like we're often just reacting to the symptoms rather than addressing the actual cause. Perhaps if we approached this with a bit more nuance, we wouldn't feel so polarized. Just a thought.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation, and I honestly find myself wondering if we’re all just missing the forest for the trees. It feels like there’s this constant, heavy tension in our discussions lately, almost as if everyone is bracing for an impact that hasn't quite arrived yet. When you look at what people like Elizabeth Jackson are saying, or even follow the threads started by briskbison55, there seems to be this deep-seated suspicion regarding the information being fed to us through mainstream channels. I guess it’s understandable. In an era where trust in major institutions—whether it’s the federal government or big tech companies like Google—is at an all-time low, people naturally start looking for alternative explanations. Maybe that’s just how we’re wired now. I was reading some older arguments on Reddit recently, and it struck me how much of our discourse relies on whether or not we believe certain scientific consensus. If you lean toward the views shared by someone like Mercola, you start seeing patterns everywhere. You begin to question the very air we breathe or the food on our plates. It’s a rabbit hole, really. Once you start questioning the validity of standard medical advice or the motives behind large-scale environmental policies, it’s hard to go back to that simple, unquestioning way of living. Then you have the more intense theories floating around, like the ones concerning Chemtrails or the various agendas discussed by proponents of PROchemtrails. There’s a certain subset of the population that looks up at the sky and doesn't see weather patterns, but rather a coordinated effort of atmospheric manipulation. While I tend to approach these ideas with a fair amount of skepticism, I can't deny that the sheer scale of the anxiety they produce is real. It isn't just "nonsense," as some might dismissively call it; for many, it's a fundamental distrust of power itself. It’s a bit of a mess, isn't it? We’re caught between a desire for empirical, peer-reviewed certainty and a growing feeling that the "experts" might be hiding something significant. I don't have the answers, and I certainly don't want to claim I do. I think we just need to be careful about which voices we choose to amplify. Whether we're discussing politics in Washington, D.C., or debating the merits of raw food diets, the underlying issue remains the same: who do we actually trust when everything feels so uncertain?

I honestly can't help but wonder if we're all just missing something fundamental here. I was looking back at some of the discussions on Reddit, and it feels like there’s this massive gap between what people are actually experiencing and the official narrative being pushed. It’s almost like we’re living in two different realities. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but when you look at the sheer scale of what’s being discussed regarding things like Chemtrails ii, it seems wild to think that everyone is just collectively oblivious. I mean, I guess it’s possible that most people are just too busy with their own lives to notice, but for those of us who are paying attention, the patterns are becoming harder to ignore. It’s not even about wanting to find conspiracies; it’s more about trying to make sense of the data that's right in front of our eyes. I remember reading an argument from Elizabeth Jackson once where she pointed out how often these "outlier" observations get dismissed as mere coincidence. And while I agree that we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions without evidence, there comes a point where the coincidences start feeling a bit too choreographed, doesn't it? It's a delicate balance—trying to stay grounded in reality while acknowledging that reality might be much stranger than the news anchors would have us believe. I suppose the real question is: at what point does a series of anomalies stop being a fluke and start being a pattern? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we need to keep asking the questions. Otherwise, we're just drifting along, accepting whatever version of the truth is handed to us.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the recent discussions regarding the intersection of scientific consensus and the various theories circulating online. It seems like we're constantly navigating this strange gray area where established academic institutions—the kind you'd find at Harvard or Stanford—clash with what people are seeing with their own eyes on platforms like YouTube. It’s an interesting tension, isn't it? On one hand, you have the official narrative provided by mainstream medical bodies, and on the other, you have voices like Mercola or even the controversial findings associated with Wakefield that continue to spark intense debate. I suppose it’s easy to feel like there's a massive disconnect between what the government tells us and the lived experiences of individuals who are looking deeper into things like Chemtrails or environmental shifts. Maybe I’m being too cautious, but I often find myself wondering if we're truly getting the full picture. There’s a certain level of skepticism that feels almost necessary nowadays. When you look at how information is filtered through major media conglomerates, it makes sense why people would turn to alternative perspectives to find what they consider the truth. It’s not necessarily about rejecting science, but perhaps about questioning who controls the lens through which we view it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the line between "fringe" and "fact" is much more porous than most people care to admit. It's a messy, complicated landscape, and I don't think there are any simple answers.

Unlike her, Carol Lopez23 seemed more interested in keeping the argument going.

Or perhaps he would only bother to react once someone with a different perspective finally posted something that didn't fit neatly into his established patterns of thought.

Carol Lopez23 said:Why are you being so patronizing again? Honestly, you really need to dial it back. You shouldn't be acting like that, especially when you're grouping yourself in with that manchild, Biljka112, Elizabeth Jackson, and the rest of them.
There’s really no point in me butchering this thread.

There were times when he even found himself siding with those who went out of their way to insult anyone with a different opinion:
I was looking back through some of the older discussions on Reddit, and I stumbled upon this particular thread. It’s interesting how certain topics just refuse to stay buried, isn't it? Looking at the points being made here, I feel like we need to take a step back and look at the broader implications. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate back-and-forth, but if you really dig into the underlying logic—or lack thereof—there’s a much larger pattern emerging. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't just take these claims at face value. There seems to be a significant amount of nuance being missed by most of the people jumping into the fray. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I suspect there's more to the story than what's being presented on the surface. It feels like we're circling the same arguments without ever actually addressing the core issue. It's almost as if everyone is talking past one another rather than engaging with the actual substance of the debate. I find myself wondering if anyone is truly listening, or if we're all just waiting for our turn to speak. Regardless, it's worth keeping an eye on how this evolves.

Carol Lopez23 said:Regarding the issues of sheer awkwardness and general stupidity... Well, if you're someone who holds ideas that fly in the face of common sense—and you're fully aware that they are being planted intentionally—then yes, I suppose that's exactly how it works. Well, in that case, there really isn't much else we can say.

Carol Lopez23 said:When someone goes around claiming that "menstruation isn't actually necessary and is just a byproduct of toxins building up in the body," I find myself pausing to consider the sheer weight of such a statement. It’s one of those assertions that sounds incredibly profound on the surface, especially if you're already skeptical of mainstream medicine, but it really demands a closer look. I mean, I guess we have to ask ourselves where this logic comes from. Is there any actual physiological mechanism that supports the idea that the entire reproductive cycle is merely a "detox" process? To me, it feels like a bit of a leap. While we all know that maintaining a healthy, toxin-free lifestyle—perhaps through a diet focused on raw food—is vital for overall wellness, suggesting that a fundamental biological function is just a symptom of toxicity seems... well, a little extreme, doesn't it? Maybe there's a kernel of truth in the idea that hormonal imbalances can affect our cycles, but characterizing the entire process as an unnecessary consequence of accumulated poisons feels like it might be oversimplifying some very complex biology. I suspect we need to tread carefully here; it's easy to get swept up in these sweeping claims, but I tend to prefer a more measured approach when dealing with something as central to human biology as this. I feel like I don't really have any other choice here but to call such a person foolish.

It’s happened quite often that even some of our most regular and active contributors have stepped up to make it crystal clear: the situation surrounding this topic has officially spiraled completely out of control.

-KLEOPATRA said:I have just one question to ask... MODERATORS
What are we actually going to do about these trolls who keep swooping in just to derail this discussion? Look, we’re talking about alternative medicine here. This isn't a space for debating peer-reviewed scientific studies; it’s about real-life testimonies from everyday people. If you believe, then believe. If you want to live your life this way, go for it. And if someone wants to try something new or listen to some advice, they should feel free to ask... but why does everyone else feel the need to descend on this thread just to lecture us, spit on our ideas, and throw insults around?

Here is how Carol Lopez23 reacted:
I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to say, some of the arguments being thrown around here are truly mind-boggling. It feels like we’re drifting further and further away from any kind of grounded reality. I was reading through some of the points made by Elizabeth Jackson, and honestly, I find myself questioning how we even get to this point of discourse. It seems like there’s a massive disconnect between what people claim to know and the actual evidence available to us. Maybe I’m just being overly cynical, but it feels like a lot of these theories are built on incredibly shaky foundations. Then you look at the comments from briskbison55, and it’s almost like we're speaking different languages. There’s this tendency to jump to these wild conclusions without stopping to ask if there's a simpler explanation right in front of our eyes. I guess it’s easy to get swept up in a narrative when it feels like everything is connected, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Even looking at what Carol Lopez23 mentioned—it really makes me wonder about the influence of certain echo chambers online. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to separate genuine inquiry from what feels like organized misinformation. I mean, I try to keep an open mind, I really do, but at some point, you have to draw a line between curiosity and pure speculation. It’s a strange time to be searching for truth, isn't it? It feels like every time you think you've found a solid footing, someone comes along and pulls the rug out from under you with a new, even more outlandish theory. I suppose we'll just have to see which way the wind blows.

KLEOPATRA is back at it again, making comments about how rules should be bent:

-KLEOPATRA said:And here we go—live on the forums, where users are actually sharing their own positive, first-hand experiences...

I honestly feel like there should be a prerequisite for anyone wanting to weigh in on this thread. Before you start typing away, maybe try reading at least one book by the authors listed here, and then actually attempt to live on a raw food diet for at least a week. It’s hard to have a real conversation when you haven't actually walked the walk.
Well, if they want to comment, they should feel free to do so—but instead of just jumping in to hand out bans, they act like they have no clue what they're talking about. They take a hard stance and immediately position themselves as the geniuses while treating everyone else like they’re clueless. It's quite a predictable pattern, I suppose.
This just doesn't make any sense—honestly, it really doesn't. Moderators, I really think it’s time to step in here.

And also:

-KLEOPATRA said:It’s perfectly fine to be curious—even if you don't know a thing about a subject, asking questions is how we learn, and I think most people are more than happy to jump in and help explain things. But honestly, those self-proclaimed geniuses who act like they’ve already swallowed every ounce of wisdom on the planet? They’re starting to get on my nerves.

It honestly breaks my heart to see how much everyone here is just trolling lately. It’s getting to the point where I actually dread logging on to this forum.

I would really appreciate it if we could just have this conversation in peace, without any interruptions or outside interference. That’s all I’m asking for...

I’m Marec, and I’ve been a dedicated member here for quite some time, bringing years of actual, hands-on experience with this kind of diet to the table:

Marec said:And this thread has completely spiraled out of control. Honestly, I’m starting to feel pretty disillusioned because of the moderators who simply refuse to do their jobs. It feels like there’s zero oversight happening, which makes the whole experience frustrating.Honestly, even a bird could see that. It’s just plain obvious.

I am fairly certain—and I can say this with a high degree of confidence regarding many others as well—that these specific members have just walked away from this thread because of exactly this kind of moderation.

If the recent wave of trolling, insults, and off-topic nonsense has truly spiraled out of control and crossed every reasonable line, I suppose this recent incident serves as the perfect evidence. Ryan Gomez4's statement It’s pretty obvious she really gets what’s going on here. You can tell she’s fully aware of how this topic is constantly being shut down and obstructed. Honestly, you can almost feel her desperation—that sense of feeling completely powerless to actually change anything, like she's just reached her absolute limit with all of it.

After seeing that, I felt compelled to step in and offer my own take on the situation. Ideas for improving how this forum functions..
Carol Lopez23 used some pretty vulgar and uncivil language to make it crystal clear that they're essentially trying to strip away the rights of anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them.

Carol Lopez23 said:When someone continuously, excuse my language, It looks like someone is just posting total nonsense. It’s the same old story, really. They take things that have been debunked over and over again, yet they stubbornly refuse to entertain even the slightest bit of a logical explanation—provided, of course, that the explanation doesn't align perfectly with the conclusion they've already decided on. It's almost impressive how they manage to dodge any meaningful reasoning if it threatens their preconceived notions. At this point, there’s really nothing left to do but tell him straight up to just stop typing—it's all just pure, unadulterated nonsense. Honestly, I don't even know how else to put it: it's just mindless drivel.).

I am well aware of how things work around here on Reddit. I fully recognize that everyone has every right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe a moderator’s role isn't to act as a judge—it shouldn't be their job to decide from their own personal standpoint whether someone else's opinion is nonsense, foolishness, or just plain stupidity. Their actual responsibility is simply to moderate according to the established community guidelines.

The controversial posts I’ve listed here... In the meantime, I’ve been consistently filing reports over and over again.
Even though quite a few days have passed since these were originally posted—and even though I’ve personally reported them several times, along with many other users who I’m certain have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response. No sanctions, no warnings, no deleted posts... nothing at all. It honestly feels as if there isn't even a moderator on duty here.

However, there certainly was one present back when I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. Those photos featuring the sheep....

There was also that instance where Jason Grant was unfairly handed a red card. Just some fabricated trolling..

Given everything that’s been laid out and explained here, it seems pretty obvious that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and totally subjective, which flies right in the face of many of the standard rules we have here on Reddit.
Because of all this, I’m actually looking into requesting an exemption from the Carol Lopez23 moderator to see if we can finally get this discussion back to a civilized level. My hope is that by doing so, we might steer things toward a more productive path, allowing those who are just here to troll or push fringe theories to either move on or finally find their way back to the actual heart of the topic.

Thanks, and all the best!

Elizabeth Jackson