Posts by Morgan Peterson

You left without even tasting the brisket, I was busy wrangling the kid, and here you are, weeping over your wallpaper like it’s some grand tragedy :D

As far as I recall, we had an agreement—you would watch your tone, and I wouldn't be so quick to pull the trigger on any bans.
So, where does that leave us, darling? Who really messed this up?
Regardless, you’ve been handed a full 24-hour ban.
Terrible, I know, truly devastating—but while you're moping, maybe take a moment to consider if all this drama is actually worth the hassle of loading up the moving van and hauling your life across state lines.

Samuel Turner2 said:Everyone, you’re getting off track here.
I would actually prefer to understand the reasoning behind closing this thread.
Thanks!

Every single one of those closed threads started out beautifully, only to devolve into—well, look at what happened above. It becomes an endless trench war between two opposing sides, coupled with the spread of utter nonsense and misinformation. Frankly, it’s rare to find a moderator who actually has the bandwidth to manage chaos like that.

So, much of this rests on your shoulders—the people actually participating in these discussions. Why don't you suggest how you think these threads should be structured?

We all know the pattern: if, for instance, someone shares a link from Logic.com during a discussion about the media, and most of us who follow Mainstream Media view that site as nothing more than a conspiracy outlet peddling nonsense, then shouldn't there be room for a real debate? Instead, people immediately pounce on anyone who disagrees, labeling them as though they believe Logic.com is flawless while the rest of us are just mindless fact-checkers or paid shills. It isn't fair, and it certainly doesn't move the conversation forward.

The threads are currently locked, but we haven't made a final decision on how to handle them moving forward.
Please exercise some patience and offer constructive suggestions.

Amy Rogers6 said:The trial in Germany starts on September 11, 2021.

Oh. I see. Is it just me, or does it ring a bell that the date was actually September 11, 2021, rather than November 9? But then again, I can't be too sure when I'm constantly tripping over the difference between American and European date formats. :barbie:
Still, surely we aren't going to start playing fast and loose with dates, as if we were Jehovah's Witnesses obsessed with the apocalypse?
No... certainly not. 🙂

Jessica Kelly4 said:So you got rid of him too? Honestly, is there anyone left from the old COVID forums worth reading? Bocecco is still trying... Perma? His idea isn't half bad.

Pardoncek, you’ve gone off the deep end into conspiracy theories once again. Somied hasn't been hit with a permanent ban, but rather a temporary suspension for being incredibly rude—which was sent his way to cool things down. I truly hope there won't be a need for a permanent ban once he regains his senses.

By the way, if I recall correctly, we have never actually issued a permanent ban over that whole COVID PDF situation. A few factions split off among the regulars, but that was the extent of it.

But really, this constant atmosphere of terror...

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Since this forum first started, the moderator nicknames have all been dedicated to characters from the movie Reservoir Dogs. It’s always the same—whenever some dirty work needs getting done, one of the usual suspects just puts on a Reservoir Dogs character suit, makes a bit of a scene, and life just goes on as usual... But this is actually the first time I’ve seen one of those "misters" get promoted to a moderator on the subforum. Makes me wonder, though—did some directive come down from "above" or something?

Is it possible that there really is still... direction coming "from above"??? 😲

😂

Casey Bennett said:And yet, they’re all at the protest, supposedly fighting for freedom. In reality, they just entertain themselves between the loud shouting matches, briefly lowering their signs just so they can type up a few pages of text. It’s a grueling life for a revolutionary. 😢

🤣

I must admit, I am somewhat perplexed—what kind of tyranny is being exerted by the moderation team and this new moderator over all of you?
From what I can gather, and based on my acquaintance with this group, if Peter were to be appointed as a moderator, you would undoubtedly find some reason to grumble.
It was explicitly stated that we require assistance; the PDF is massive and incredibly taxing to moderate while we navigate these current and acute phases of the pandemic, so it was only a matter of time before extra help was added to the moderation staff.
The fact that the new moderator remains entirely anonymous should not trouble you, as the rules applied to them are identical to those applied to us veterans.
Do not insult, do not comment on the moderation within the PDF, and rather than engaging with controversial posts, simply report them.
Simple as that.

Look, I’ve already put in a request to have your ban lifted, so please just be patient while one of the administrators handles it. It isn't necessarily because the moderator made a mistake with the penalty, but rather because there are plenty of users far more problematic than you who won't be getting their sanctions reduced nearly as easily. I really must ask you to be more mindful of your tone in future discussions.

Rachel Barrett8 said:People are scared, and honestly, how could they not be?
We've been fed fear and paranoia for almost two years straight.
What kind of disease are you actually fighting by pumping everyone full of anxiety and hysteria?
I’m no doctor, but I am asking seriously.

I see where the disconnect is.
I referred to a law, while you're just pointing at an executive order and a set of guidelines.
Those aren't the same thing.

Everyone is struggling to catch their breath, so why wouldn't the little ones, who are still developing, feel it even more?
Just let them breathe freely, people... honestly, it's like we all got brainwashed when we were kids.

No, they certainly are not the same.
The latter category consists of subordinate acts which, true to their nature, are mandatory; they serve to clarify, implement, or provide guidance pursuant to the governing statute.
Now, please, go ahead and suggest that every single individual should have the discretion to decide which specific law, decree, or ruling they feel like following—just based on whatever whim strikes them at the moment. 😵

Robert Hernandez11 said:Real persecution is when a student actually has—get this—homework and projects, and has to take tests every single day.
Like, seriously??
(By the way, according to the school handbook, they're only supposed to have one test a day, maybe four a week—so... 🤷)

Personally, back when I was in Elementary School and especially through high school, I had two or even three exams in a single day, plus homework, papers, and seminars—which they call "projects" now—and reading assignments... and everything else.
And honestly, it didn't feel like "persecution" to me.
I mean, there isn't any other way to actually learn things besides studying and doing the work—if anyone has a better idea, please, let us know.

I didn't experience it personally, but most of the time I was walking into school through that dark, communist gloom, so what do I know about modern times?
Even so, I graduated with top marks, went through various schools and universities, and I don't feel even remotely deprived in terms of general knowledge. Quite the opposite, actually.
So yes, allow me to suggest that cramming massive amounts of material into students and constantly testing them on such an overwhelming curriculum is, indeed, exploitation—especially for those younger kids in Elementary School.
In our local school district, children aren't usually suffering from trauma caused by the Corona pandemic; rather, they are traumatized by this "school for life" concept, the latest invention of our educational system.
They are constantly falling ill, vomiting, and so on.
The teachers claim it's just a virus.
The parents say it's school-induced stress and an overly demanding curriculum.

Robert Hernandez11 said:Real persecution is when a student actually has—get this—homework and projects, and has to take tests every single day.
Like, seriously??
(By the way, according to the school handbook, they're only supposed to have one test a day, maybe four a week—so... 🤷)

Personally, back when I was in Elementary School and especially through high school, I had two or even three exams in a single day, plus homework, papers, and seminars—which they call "projects" now—and reading assignments... and everything else.
And honestly, it didn't feel like "persecution" to me.
I mean, there isn't any other way to actually learn things besides studying and doing the work—if anyone has a better idea, please, let us know.

Oh, there are solutions, believe me. But I won't go too far off-topic; there's no point in rambling here.

slysurfer14 said:Why didn't anyone say anything......
Do those masks even have any actual certification to protect against viruses?

Honestly, aren't you all ashamed to just stay quiet while someone plays games with our kids' health?

And why on earth should we feel ashamed?
It seems most parents—myself included—don't view wearing a mask for such a brief, strictly limited period as some sort of psychological warfare against our children.
To my mind, true "playing games" involves hauling around seven or eight-pound bags—my son is quite thin, so there's a genuine risk he'll tip backward like a turtle—or dealing with a daily exam on top of the usual homework and projects.
But then again, who asked me? 🤷

coastalorca43 said:Appalachia has once again proven that it produces the bravest sons of this beautiful nation, men who selflessly lead their people into battle against hateful occupiers and oppressors.
Following in the footsteps of figures like Gubec, Josip Broz Marshall, and Franjo Harmon, we now have Gaćina.

It’s all well and good, but Mr. Garrison is—well, he’s a Floridian.
So, I am hardly surprised that Garrison lacks much local support there; you see, Hillbillies rarely stir up trouble, but when they finally do decide to rise, it is undoubtedly for a profound reason—not merely over some triviality like a bit of cloth used as a gag for a few minutes a day, but because it is better to retreat than to face the consequences, for those who survive will certainly have plenty to say. 🙂

This harassment of their children both before and within the school by a group of fanatic protesters clearly does not sit well with the majority in Appalachia, does it? Perhaps Mr. Garrison might want to start considering what sort of life awaits him and his family in that region once this entire ordeal concludes. My heart truly goes out to the little one; his father has gone to great lengths to ensure the boy is branded for the rest of his life... 🕺

Jesse Price said:Am I truly being offensive in five out of my six posts? Where on earth did you conjure that notion from? Could you perhaps provide some semblance of proof by actually citing those specific posts where you claim I am being insulting? Or is it possible that you have become so hyper-focused on my contributions that you’ve lost all sense of objectivity? How else am I to explain why this post from last night sailed through without a single sanction, yet I find myself facing a draconian 500-point penalty for supposedly being aggressive? From the very first day I started posting in this subforum, you have been threatening me with partial bans simply because I had the audacity—can you believe it?—to ask someone who made a public claim to actually substantiate it. If I truly insulted someone, as I allegedly did yesterday, then please, issue me a standard violation for insults. Do not manufacture a litany of grievances in your mind only to punish me with such excessive severity when the punishment bears no relation to the supposed offense.

The reason what you're citing went unnoticed is quite simple: I didn't see it.
As for the rest, I'll leave it to the admins to deal with your appeal; I have stated my piece.

That part where you tell someone to "go screw themselves" is the final insult in that opus you just penned; the rest consists of roughly one coherent thought compared to at least five instances where you lash out at other users, varying from subtle jabs to full-blown verbal assaults. For the most part, I simply delete those outbursts, but even by my standards, you have truly crossed a line this time. If you actually bothered to read the thread you’re posting in, you might notice that the rhetoric has settled down significantly and that insults are rare, if they exist at all.
And we managed to achieve that level of civility through objective moderation whenever it was possible.
Of course, I am all for reviewing the ban list, but as far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with the way you choose to communicate.

Gerald Chavez7 said:Sure, a journalist can pen an article all they want, but that doesn't mean they're obligated to police the absolute circus happening in the comments section right beneath it. 😁

Of course, there are plenty of instances where "labeling" someone isn't intended as a slur, a provocation, or mere trolling. But more often than not, isn't it? And doesn't it almost always just lead to these pointless, exhausting little shadowboxing matches?

P.S. Honestly, if someone calls me a Republican, I’d take being called an idiot any day of the week. 😉

👍

neonpuma30 said:Why on earth is the term "anti-vaxxer" being banned?🤷

Are we truly expected to cater to such an aggressive minority?🍿

🙄
She’s already churned out about ten posts on this exact subject. Honestly, I don't have the energy to go back at it again. If you really want to understand the nuance, why not just pick up a search engine and do some digging? It might actually provide you with some much-needed clarity. ☕

Carl Wilson said:Morgan Peterson, if I may pivot slightly to this topic—why exactly are you banning terms like "vaxxer" or "antivaxxer" under the threat of being banned yourself? These aren't some fringe slang words invented in a basement; they are part of the standard lexicon used by every major news outlet and mainstream media organization across the country. If the biggest networks in America are using them daily, why is it suddenly a violation here?
Is it not curious how certain digital monoliths seem to command the entire landscape of our national discourse? I find myself frequently glancing toward sites like CNN or even the more populist corners of Reddit, wondering if we are truly engaging with the news or merely reacting to the loudest echoes in the room.

Is it not curious how certain digital portals attempt to command our attention? I find myself pondering the sheer ubiquity of sites like CNN or Yahoo!—those massive, sprawling news aggregators that seem to insist on being everywhere at once. One cannot help but wonder if such constant, relentless information flow truly serves the public interest, or if it merely creates a frantic sort of digital noise that drowns out actual contemplation. Does anyone else feel this peculiar sense of exhaustion when navigating these monolithic media hubs?
I find myself once again staring at the headlines, wondering if we have collectively decided to ignore the blatant absurdity unfolding right before our eyes. Is it truly possible that the sheer scale of this legislative overhaul—this sweeping attempt to reshape our entire regulatory landscape—is being met with such a muted reaction from the public? One would think that an adjustment of this magnitude, impacting everything from local commerce to the very fabric of our civic engagement, would spark a firestorm of debate in every coffee shop from Seattle to Miami. Yet, here we are. We watch as these policy shifts are pushed through with a calculated, almost surgical precision, leaving us to wonder: who exactly is this designed to benefit? Is it the average citizen, struggling to navigate the complexities of modern life, or is it merely another layer of bureaucracy intended to serve the interests of those already entrenched in power? It feels less like progress and more like a slow, methodical tightening of the reins. The implications are vast, stretching far beyond the immediate ink on the page. When we allow such fundamental changes to occur without vigorous scrutiny, aren't we essentially handing over the keys to our own autonomy? I cannot help but feel a sense of profound skepticism. Are we witnessing a necessary evolution of our legal framework, or are we simply watching the quiet erosion of the standards we once held dear? One can only hope that the voices of reason will eventually rise to meet this challenge, though, looking at the current climate, I find my optimism waning.
Take, for instance, a column you might stumble upon in the New York Post.
Where exactly did this whole thing begin? It is the question that seems to haunt every dinner table conversation from Maine to California, isn't it? We find ourselves staring at the endless, swirling vortex of the internet, searching for a single, definitive answer that remains perpetually out of reach. The discourse surrounding the origins of the coronavirus has become a labyrinthine struggle between scientific inquiry and political theater. One moment, we are told the virus emerged through a natural leap from animals to humans in a bustling marketplace; the next, the whispers of a laboratory mishap grow loud enough to drown out any sense of certainty. Is it possible that we are looking for simplicity in a world defined by complexity? Or are we simply unwilling to accept that the truth might be far more uncomfortable than the theories we cling to? It feels as though every time a new study is released, the goalposts are moved just an inch further away. We watch as experts debate, clash, and occasionally agree, yet the public is left wandering through a fog of conflicting reports and half-truths. Can we ever truly achieve a consensus when the very foundations of our evidence are under constant scrutiny? It makes one wonder if the search for the "smoking gun" is even productive, or if we are merely chasing shadows in an attempt to make sense of a global catastrophe that defied all our expectations.
Take, for instance, the New York Times.
Is it truly possible that we have reached such a precipice? I find myself staring at the latest reports regarding the escalating tensions between the United States and various international actors, and I am left wondering if anyone in Washington actually possesses a grasp on the sheer volatility of our current geopolitical landscape. We see these headlines—shifting alliances, sudden economic sanctions, and the constant, low-frequency hum of diplomatic friction—and we are expected to simply nod and carry on with our lives as if the ground beneath us isn't subtly shifting. The recent developments involving these high-stakes negotiations feel less like calculated diplomacy and more like a frantic attempt to plug leaks in a sinking ship. Are we witnessing the slow erosion of established international norms, or is this merely the inevitable friction that occurs when global powers collide in an increasingly multipolar world? It seems we are perpetually caught in this cycle of crisis and response, yet the "response" phase always feels reactionary, lacking the foresight required to prevent the next inevitable tremor. One cannot help but observe the rhetoric coming out of the major policy institutes and think: how many times can we rearrange the deck chairs before the ocean decides it has had enough? There is a certain exhaustion that settles in when you realize that the grand strategies being discussed in the halls of power often seem disconnected from the granular reality of how these decisions impact the average citizen. Is there a coherent vision guiding us through this turbulence, or are we simply drifting, guided by the winds of political expediency and short-term interests? It is a question that remains, as always, hauntingly unanswered.
....
?

So, you have already gone ahead and branded us all as lunatics, haven't you? You’ve effectively cordoned off any critical discourse, relegating it to those niche threads dedicated solely to conspiracy theories. Now, am I to understand that anyone who dares to question the official directives from the high command—both our own domestic leadership and the global powers they follow—must be lumped in with the fringe crowd who sees a 5G conspiracy lurking behind every streetlamp? How much longer do you intend to humiliate those of us who refuse to blindly bow to the mainstream narrative?

We certainly could have settled this matter elsewhere, but I suppose we shall proceed here. To be clear, I haven’t issued any arbitrary bans; rather, we reached a mutual agreement—prompted by the moderators—that labeling large groups of people with such wildly inaccurate qualifications would result in formal warnings. Our sole objective is to preserve the possibility of a civilized discussion. Is it not true that one can harbor skepticism toward the COVID vaccines without necessarily being opposed to all other forms of immunization? Similarly, can we not acknowledge that those who support the COVID shots may not hold identical views on standard childhood vaccinations? There are countless nuances regarding how one perceives the pandemic and various diseases, and as long as these perspectives are communicated with a modicum of decency, a meaningful dialogue remains entirely sustainable.

If your primary grievance is that you can no longer go around labeling your interlocutors as "shills" or "paid trolls" without consequence, I feel compelled to point out that such behavior was never permissible to begin with. However, we have reached a point where those who questioned the COVID-19 vaccines have finally received some semblance of vindication; they are no longer being reflexively branded as "antivaxxers" by default. Given that shift, I find myself wondering—quite genuinely—why this remains such a significant sticking point for you?

What kind of subject could possibly merit its own dedicated thread without already being thoroughly dissected by the endless rabbit holes of conspiracy theories?
I am not asking this for my own sake, but rather for yours; if you can actually provide an answer, perhaps then you will finally grasp why the topic was locked in the first place.

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that this marks your seventh consecutive attempt to complain about moderation within this coronavirus pdf in less than two months.
It is a pattern, nothing more, nothing less. 🥳

Tyler Garcia69 said:I was fully prepared for some futile objections and complaints, but I certainly didn't anticipate this absolute deluge—this literal tidal wave—of trolls. 😬

ah, fu** 'em 😎

Right. So, in your worldview, everyone—literally everyone else—is driving on the wrong side of the road except for you?
It’s quite an interesting narrative, though it's a pity we’ve already heard it all before.
And then there’s that classic line: "I'm not being antisemitic, but..." 😒
Just remember—when it comes to certain things, such as racism, there is absolutely NO "BUT." If you require specific details on matters where "but" simply does not exist, feel free to consult the Constitution and the Penal Code of the US, and do try to adhere to them while posting here.

There was already a discussion regarding this very topic back when Sky was banned, and I truly believed we had moved past it—that the message had been received, especially since conspiracy theories offer such vast, expansive territory for expression without ever needing to resort to hate speech.
Yet, here you are, throwing a tantrum—not over a mere trifle, but over the deletion of posts—while simultaneously insulting every single person who has the audacity to tell you that you are wrong. 😵
In any case, I appreciate you opening this thread; it serves as a helpful reminder of the boundaries governing our communication, which I shall ensure are strictly observed moving forward.