Posts by Jerry Rogers6

Charles Fox10 said:No, it isn't clever. When a rational person realizes something wasn't written correctly, common decency—at least for me—dictates they fix it at the next opportunity.

Charles, I know you consider yourself a rational person, and I know you aren't someone who hates dialogue, but I’m pointing out something a bit more nuanced here when I ironically suggest you should have "corrected yourself" a little.

I honestly think we’ve reached a point where these kinds of oversights—along with much cruder ones—have been happening for far too long. It’s gotten to the stage where we can move past calling them mere "oversights" and start calling them what they actually are: symptoms.
You get this distinct impression that something is fundamentally rotten in the core of this community when, not only through obsessive political nitpicking but also through various administrative statements, you constantly run into viewpoints and mindsets that would typically be relegated to the fringes of any civilized society.
In a real democracy, those fringe views wouldn't even break 4% of the vote, so when you tally up all these oversight instances, the minor corrections, and the belated disclaimers from that same group of people signing off on garbage posts—you end up with a reflection in the mirror that isn't particularly pleasant. It’s certainly not the image one would want to represent them in the real world.

Charles Fox10 said:The administration didn't write that; I did, within the context of that specific debate. Once a few young ladies pointed out how one-sided my phrasing was, I corrected it immediately.

So you "corrected" yourself, huh? Real smooth. 😁

Charles, look—making a joke on Reddit is one thing, but systematically pushing this kind of narrow-minded bias on a platform that tries to present itself as a serious space is something else entirely.
I honestly don't get it. Is it really that difficult to conduct a coherent analysis and finally realize why such a significant percentage of the high-quality users here have been avoiding political threads for years now? 🤷

Sean Cook2 said:If the platform isn't liable for anything, why not just allow hate speech against certain races or nations across the board?

Let the lawyers weigh in, I suppose—but maybe we should just file a report and see how it plays out.

Even if the platform isn't legally liable, there is still a moral component—moderation decisions reveal what values a site actually stands for. That’s why I’m pushing for a statement from administration; we need to establish a standard where the belittling of men or women is no longer tolerated.

I'm signing onto this—I think all the supermoderators should step up and make a public statement so we can finally put these doubts to rest once and for all.

Is it just me, or does it feel like Twilight Zone territory when these low-effort spam links get ignored by the mods, yet if someone like a public official commits a serious offense, you practically have to drag them in by the collar just to get any kind of accountability?

🤦 🤷

Sean Cook2 said:Honestly, they aren't even that hard to spot—which makes it a bit frustrating that his posts still slip through on clearly moderated pages, allowing him to keep posting for days. I actually started this thread just to ask why nothing is being done about it.

He’ll just claim it's all down to the administration—blaming their specific stance and the blatant fact that they’re clearly greenlighting the promotion of whatever values they personally deem "good" or acceptable.

And honestly, this is just another chapter in the same book—a continuation of the incredibly poor and incompetent administration I’ve been witnessing on this platform for years now.

Sean Cook2 said:Exactly.

It’s impossible to miss what’s being written—even if you have them on ignore—when there's always a crowd of people ready to sign off on that garbage and cheer him on.

And those signers—honestly, they’re clearly too close for comfort. It’s almost like there’s some secret romance going on behind the scenes. 😁😁

Michelle Wells3 said:Look, speaking as a former moderator, I can tell you firsthand that this "public official" type pops up in a different guise on Reddit every single time. It takes a little while to spot them, but once you do, you have to give credit where it’s due—it’s a lot of work to track them down. In the meantime, they manage to clutter up the feed with posts that are way too long to actually read. Every now and then, they’ll drop a genuinely sharp observation, like something about domestic politics, but they always try to sneak in these absolutely pathetic theories regarding gender, race, and nationality. Someone reports them, a mod steps in to issue a ban and scrubs the worst of it, but there’s always some leftover trash left behind.

I mean, look, I think my former colleagues have good intentions, really. But if you ask me, they’re basically playing a game of Sisyphus here—just pushing that same heavy boulder up the hill over and over again. Honestly, any attempt at more aggressive moderation than what we're doing now would probably just start looking like a simulated police investigation. It would definitely cause way more damage to the community than it would actually solve. Maybe it's overkill, but I guess that's just how it goes.

My honest recommendation? Just ignore the lists. 😁

I’d sooner say someone in this whole situation is just a massive idiot rather than Sisyphus... but hey, that’s just my two cents. 😁
Because at the end of the day, all those good intentions don't mean a damn thing. 🤷

Any moderation more aggressive than what we have now would basically turn into simulating police procedures, which would cause far more damage to the community than any benefit it provides.

What’s the actual point of these maniacs who wander from one corner of the internet to another trying to push their twisted indoctrinations?
And if you want the circus to get even bigger, I’ve frequently run into these types—people I used to recognize myself, actually—bragging about how they got banned from other sites. I mean, seriously, what is this? A social services center? A playground for the needy, the humiliated, and the rejected? 🤷

They should just go start their own specialized forum alongside this one and let people like that play together 24/7.
It’s a win-win.

My top recommendation: use the ignore list. 😁

The user isn't saying anything else. 🤷
But damn this administration for failing to see anything problematic in the absolute filth left behind after every single incarnation of this guy.

brightpilot6 said:Benzema is just a better fit for this than Lewandowski.

I don't know what to tell you—it’s just one of those things. Sometimes things click, and sometimes they don't. It's like trying to tune an old radio in a basement; you can turn the dial all you want, adjusting for every bit of static, but if the signal isn't there, you're just wasting your time. You can't force the clarity. It’s a matter of timing and, frankly, a little bit of luck. kaže:
Matri is simply in a league of his own—honestly, there’s just no one else even playing the same game. ☕

ambertinker41 said:And honestly, it’s a lot more attractive, too. ☕

Steven Wood72 said:But let’s be real—nobody else even comes close to playing like Chiellini.

Steven Wood72 said:That’s the core group right there—think along the lines of a classic roster like LeBron, AD, Anthony Davis, and the rest of that Lakers squad.

Steven Wood72 said:Honestly, I have no idea how I managed to let him slip my mind. 😢

Henry Lee84 said:The debate surrounding the Bundesliga is getting out of hand—honestly, after seeing how everything played out, I feel like I’ve finally seen the whole picture. 🙏

brightpilot6 said:Gay? Why? In my experience, whether another man is attractive or not is really only a concern for guys who aren't entirely sure about their own—well, let's call it "orientation"—to begin with. ☕

Henry Lee84 said:Give me a breakdown on ZZ. 🍿 It’s honestly exhausting to watch how people try to cheapen Freud’s legacy—it’s like watching someone take a vintage Mustang, strip the engine, and try to sell it as a budget economy car. It’s a total logical fallacy. You can't just toss out his core theories and act like you've dismantled his entire contribution to psychology when you're actually just misinterpreting the basics. It’s lazy, really.

brightpilot6 said:It’s simple, really. On a purely logical level, you guys are confusing aesthetics with sexual attraction. Just because I say a car is beautiful or a dog is handsome doesn't mean—automatically—that I want to get intimate with them.

On a purely personal level—and I say this with zero intention of being provocative, just observing how things work—some men seem to harbor this deep-seated anxiety. It’s almost like an instinctual fear that acknowledging when another man is genuinely handsome might somehow diminish their own standing. They struggle to accept the reality that a man can have striking features without it being a threat to their own ego or masculinity. estetsku It ended up resulting in this second one. Honestly, they don't even want to engage with the actual phenomenon—instead, they just target anyone brave enough to dissect it, slapping "gay" labels on them like it’s some kind of ultimate indictment. ☕

Look, you see? There’s just zero fun to be had here.

Get these idiots out of the Bundesliga—or at least move them to a league where they actually belong, like the USL.

Hey.

loneraven25 said:I find it hard to believe you ever even got a single warning from Elsa. 🤷

And honestly? I can't wrap my head around how some total incompetent loser managed to get appointed as a moderator either. 🤷

Charles Fox10 said:The post stays up because we aren't deleting it—period. And honestly, that whole bit about mushrooms and backpacks? You're totally missing the mark; there’s at least 311 miles miles of airspace between us. Besides, I'm just following the Mesić doctrine: "let the institutions do their jobs."

It's getting excessive, damn it. Don't make me start digging up old posts—especially when plenty of much heavier accusations didn't even get properly punished; they weren't sanctioned AT ALL.

So, I was recently getting dragged through the mud by some paranoid idiots here for various reasons (🙂). I actually went back to check my history after getting my last warning on Politics, and—get this—the final straw was actually from Auntie Elsa regarding that old thread about Paul Kalinic from ages ago.

And wouldn't you know it? Even back then, other users were trying to point out how absolutely nonsensical that warning was—completely unprovoked, mind you—but it was all for nothing at the time, lost in the usual shuffle of petty, meaningless debates and nonsense. (😁)

Honestly, that warning was a joke—totally inexplicable—much like this latest one from Marasovac, by the way. Though, I'll admit, I wasn't nearly this outspoken back then. 😬

Anyway, I really think Auntie Elsa needs to set aside any personal likes or dislikes and try to stay objective when judging what people write.
I agree that we need to raise the bar for acceptable communication in this absolute cesspool, but I don't think we should be measuring "acceptable" based solely on "Auntie Elsa's" standards and those of her circle—because, frankly, that became a very questionable metric a long time ago.

wiredbison82 said:John Cassavetes - Gena Rowlands

And don't forget Gazzara 🙂

Sydney Pollack - Robert Redford

Steven King74 said:I believe this complaint was clearly intended for the administration. But since they refuse to step up and instead we have random Forum users chiming in who don't know the first thing about the topic, I have no choice but to accept this chat being turned into whatever this is.
I’m going to lay out my complaint one more time in full detail, just in case certain points were misunderstood.
I’m jumping into this discussion with the following observation:
What’s so strange about that? This is an official state celebration. If you don't like it, you don't have to show up. Personally, I can't stand it when Cardinal Bozanić gives a political speech from the altar on Christmas, so I don't bother going. If something bothers you, just look away or be somewhere else. Why does anyone feel the need to force their opinions on everyone else and ruin a celebration that others actually came to see?
I think this post is perfectly fine and should actually spark some debate. I’ve laid out a very clean comparison between celebrating Independence Day and attending an official Christmas Mass. My question to those who claim that booing during an Independence Day celebration isn't a breach of public order is this: do you also believe it would be appropriate to boo through Cardinal Bozanić's entire sermon during Mass? Or would that, too, be considered a disturbance of the peace?
So, this is the response I get:
It’s strange, isn't it? You only find that kind of thinking in places like North Korea or China.
This kind of mindset has no place in Europe. So, if anyone actually finds our version of democracy offensive, I suggest they pack their bags and move to countries like that.
In my opinion, this is nothing but a pure troll response. It has absolutely zero connection to anything I actually wrote. There isn't a single valid argument here—just someone accusing me of being exactly what they claim. Just like me. (Ad hominem) He thinks I’m living in North Korea or China (communism). You think some people—who, heaven knows who—actually move to those countries? So, instead of getting a single meaningful argument against my point, all I get is an accusation that I'm a communist. That is the only reason this entire post was even written.
That’s my response:
Listen here, Scum.
This is how thinking works in a democracy. Just because you’ve convinced yourself that your opinion carries more weight than everyone else's doesn't make it true. That kind of arrogance only flies in Canada—which is probably where you're posting from.

It should be obvious that calling someone "Listen, Scum" isn't an insult, nor is it some derogatory play on their username. It’s no different than if I had written "Listen, slybison8." If I had said, for example... What kind of Scum are you being here? That would be playing games with someone else's handle.
In part. And what exactly makes you think your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's? I don't believe any rules were broken here. That comment wasn't an ad hominem attack, nor was it an insult. I only said it for the reason I already laid out above: the same people cheering for booing the Prime Minister during the official Homeland Thanksgiving celebration wouldn't dream of doing that during a formal Mass for Christmas when Cardinal Bozanić is speaking. They clearly think their own opinion carries more weight than everyone else's.
I'm continuing. You're barely getting by. You probably aren't even writing this from here—more likely you're posting from Canada.This isn't an attack on any residents of Canada or the users from there. It’s an indictment of Canada as a state that lacks true democracy. I used this rhetoric simply as a parallel to those accusations that anyone who thinks like me must be living under Communism.
Let’s go through the ad hominem attacks one more time. Shall we?
The kind of thinking you're doing only happens in places like North Korea or China.
If someone actually finds this version of democracy offensive, I have a simple suggestion: pack your bags and move to one of those other countries. Why stay?
vs
You’re just passing through Canada anyway—that’s probably where you're writing from.
What exactly did we say to each other that was so different? He sent me to North Korea and China, while I sent him to Canada. Even looking at the rhetoric, I’d argue his was less civil. Why is one post flagged as an ad hominem attack while the other isn't? Let's be clear: this isn't just a complaint about a ban. Posts like these—both of them—have no place in a serious, reasoned debate. In my opinion, both posts deserved a penalty far greater than just a single point. What makes this a legitimate grievance is the blatant double standard in how those two posts were treated.
And this isn't just about those two specific posts. This entire thread is drowning in trolling and ad hominem attacks—at least, that’s how they define it here. Selective banning like this does absolutely nothing to maintain order on the forum. I am simply asking for equal treatment. If you’re going to allow general chaos and unhinged nonsense, then let everyone participate in it. If someone attacks me, let me defend myself; trust me, I know how to handle it. If the goal is to bring order to the discussion, this isn't the way to do it. Right now, the moderation team is sending me a clear message through their politics: I have to sit here and endure insults, yet I can't respond without being the only one getting hit with a ban. What am I supposed to be, a punching bag? All I wanted was an actual, reasoned debate. After being treated like this by the moderators, why on earth should I feel motivated to write anything else?
Here are a few more posts from this same thread that weren't deemed worthy of a ban. Honestly, tell me: is my post any worse than these?

(disgusting and vile hypocrites among the users)
(classic trolling)
(this is hate speech)
(accusing a user of having a petty, small-minded mentality and warped logic—which, by these standards, shouldn't be considered an ad hominem)
(an insulting response claiming a user is from Mexico based on their writing style; what's the difference compared to the one regarding Canada?)
(calling users Titoist hedonists and communists—is that an insult or at least an ad hominem?)
(no comment)
(now, this one is a story in itself. Every other post from this individual is a subtle call for violence. I've personally reported posts where he mentions who deserves a bullet, yet those posts just vanish. It would be interesting if the administration checked if they were actually banned. Also, the very next post after this is slybison8's, so he surely had to see it. Though, if we recall, slybison8 left the moderation team for a while because of his support for this guy, so it’s hardly surprising he didn't want to look. In fact, it was only during that specific administration that we truly saw what slybison8 is capable of. I remember the thread about Breivik and slybison8's comments suggesting he could understand why someone like Breivik would snap after 20 years of leftist rule in the country, trying to explain the whole thing through a leftist lens, which was apparently all that mattered at the time)

If that's how you feel, it would be nice if you backed up those claims with something concrete. Which post isn't proof of what I'm saying? I believe they all confirm my point, one by one. But let me summarize.
Why is it considered acceptable for slybison8 to accuse a perfectly orderly post by Alexis of having a secret police mentality? Is that merely a matter of political opinion, or is it an insult to a user, or even an ad hominem?
And why is it fine for a post by Edward Fisher86 to be labeled as wretched, pathetic, cheap, and shameless demagoguery? Seriously, what is the difference between that and calling a female user a pathetic, wretched, cheap, and shameless demagogue directly? To me...I have no idea where you’re likely writing this from, yet you somehow manage to frame everything as an ad hominem attack. Seriously, can't this be interpreted as someone straight-up insulting a Forum user?
On top of that, I won't bother repeating myself since there are plenty of links provided, but it seems we just look the other way when there's a pile of direct insults and comparisons between Forum users and Communists or Nazis.
Look, if you've decided to join the World and Discussion, please just be specific. Or is the rule here "I see, but I'm not allowed to see"?

That's just classic behavior. Honestly, if you look closely, you can see how history repeats itself, especially if you check out my second post

Just ignore the crowd that's clearly here on a specific assignment again 😁

Regarding the situation with slybison8—it wasn't just hinted at; honestly, looking back, it was pointed out far too many times if you actually take a moment to think about it properly.
Clear, concise, and backed by facts.
The truth is, people simply lack the will to act anymore.

The administration found it easier to play dumb and treat the users like idiots rather than seriously addressing a moderator who is clearly problematic and unfit for the role.

And all this self-promotion about how there’s been no retaliation or any kind of abuse? That’s just childish nonsense.🙂

Anyway, personally, I’m glad to see more and more people finally noticing what we’ve been calling out for ages—back when his outbursts were much more frequent than they are today.
There isn't a pair of gloves in existence thick enough to hide the sheer extent of his "hospitality" and supposed competence.

Charles Fox10 said:Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.

Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.

That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.

Even if the thread stayed locked or got tossed into some completely irrelevant corner, I wouldn't have had an issue with it. Threads like these usually just serve as a playground for the usual aggressive types to get their daily fix of hysteria, stigmatization, slander, waving symbols around, and cheap grandstanding.

Actually, it might not be a bad idea to start one single dedicated thread for political updates from the Tracers sections—you know, stuff like the local election chatter and party politics—just to take the pressure off the rest of the forum.🤷😁
The crew clearly can't breathe if everyone is constantly picking fights; honestly, there’s no difference between this group and any other unruly mob out on the street.
If you could minimize these kinds of outbursts to the absolute bare minimum, maybe we’d finally see a miracle where this forum actually becomes smarter and more functional over time.

wiredscout14 said:Let Max deal with the masters—Kimi is biting harder than ever right now. 😉

I'm just not buying it—not even close.

Is today's Formula 1 actually the sport we grew up watching? 🙂

Look, there are moments where things just get messy—take Romain's qualifying run in Monaco, for instance, or how Sergio was driving people absolutely crazy during the race itself.

Even Lewis is finally waking up, which honestly? That's a good thing. 😁

William Bennett53 said:Look, it’s obvious Ferrari could have handled things better if I had actually dragged Alonso into Q3. But then again, Renault screwed up too—they completely botched Kimi’s strategy by calling him into the pits at the absolute worst moment. We always end up stuck in this endless loop of "what ifs"... if both teams had just made smarter strategic calls, who knows? Maybe we’d still be looking at the exact same result we have now.

Don't tell me Kimi lost the race first to Lewis, and then to Grosjean
right from the get-go

If he had handled that more quickly, more skillfully, or just less painfully—I honestly think he would have taken the win without much trouble at all.

Samuel Ruiz4 said:Just wanted to flex a little here—I nailed the top three finishers in China perfectly. I am definitely placing some bets starting with the next race.

tibi, looks like you've found your teammate for next season 🙏

hope Kimi brings you nothing but good luck 😁😁

you guys aren't going to sweep both titles anyway, and maybe this single one will finally be the end of it 😁
stop whining about Mark, seriously 🙂

Joseph Peterson8 said:He was right on his gearbox—less than half a second away—just before hitting the pit lane. If they had pulled the trigger on the pit stop at the same time they did for Sebastian Vettel, he probably would have come out ahead. Even if he hadn't, he would've had the entire race to hunt him down, and we actually would have had something worth watching for once.

Yeah, he was really digging in there; I honestly think he could have caught him too.

In my opinion, both Lou and Kimi had a better start. 😲🙏

ps.



🙂

stormybadger8 said:That little bit where Lewis Hamilton questioned if he was actually running on the same tires as everyone else was pretty interesting...
Who knows—maybe they didn't even get the same rubber🤷

When did he ask that?

I found it weird when he was on the radio right at the start while he was chasing Kimi Räikkönen - I have no grip man 🤷

Samuel Ruiz4 said:People should have placed bets on this.
It’s a shame there weren't more hot or high-temp races—the gap between Vettel and Kimi would have been much tighter than 41 points, and even Alonso wouldn't have pulled ahead of him.

Nice call on the prediction 🙏🙏

I actually remembered halfway through the race that someone had managed to land a Lotus on the podium 😁