8 posts shown.
Has anyone else ever felt that specific, hollow pit in your stomach when a plan you spent weeks meticulously organizing just… evaporates the moment you actually show up to execute it? I’m talking about that feeling when you’re exhausted, miles from home, and you realize the "safety net" you paid for isn't actually there.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the concept of reliability in the service industry. We live in this era where everything is supposed to be "seamless." We book through apps, we get instant confirmation emails, we see the little green checkmarks next to our reservations, and we operate under the assumption that a digital transaction equals a physical reality. But lately, it feels like there is a massive, growing gap between what a company promises on a screen and what their actual front-desk staff is empowered (or willing) to do when things go sideways.
It’s one thing if a flight is delayed by an hour; you can grab a coffee, sit in the terminal, and wait. It’s another thing entirely when you’ve navigated traffic, managed complicated personal logistics, and finally arrive at your destination only to be told that your presence is somehow an inconvenience or, worse, a clerical error. There is a profound sense of vulnerability in being a traveler—especially if you are traveling with someone who has specific needs or health considerations—and finding out that the "guarantee" you purchased was essentially just a suggestion.
I had a situation a couple of years ago where I thought I was being incredibly responsible. I booked a stay well in advance to ensure everything was set for a family event. I even did the "extra mile" stuff—calling ahead, confirming the arrival time, making sure they knew we’d be late. I did everything by the book. And yet, when we rolled up to the lobby, the person behind the desk looked at us with nothing but indifference. The room wasn't there. No apology that carried any weight, no immediate solution that didn't involve us wandering the streets in the middle of the night, just a shrug and a "sorry, we're full."
What really gets to me isn't just the inconvenience; it's the erosion of trust. If a business can't honor a confirmed booking, what are we actually paying for? We aren't just paying for a bed; we are paying for the peace of mind that we will have a place to rest after a long journey. When a company overbooks, they are essentially gambling with your time, your safety, and your well-being to maximize their own margins. It feels predatory, especially when you consider that for many people, a hotel isn't just a luxury—it's a necessity for managing health issues or maintaining a schedule that can't be easily shifted.
I find myself wondering if this is becoming the new norm. Is "overbooking" just a standard operating procedure now? Is the "customer is always right" mantra being replaced by "the algorithm is always right"? It feels like we are moving toward a world where we are all just data points in a spreadsheet, and if the spreadsheet says we don't fit, we're just out of luck.
I'm curious to hear from the frequent travelers and the skeptics here. How much do you actually trust your reservations these days? Do you find yourself carrying a "Plan B" in your back pocket every single time you leave the house, or do you still believe that a confirmed booking actually means something? And for those who have been left stranded by a "guaranteed" stay, how did you handle the fallout?
lonetrucker4 said:Was that actually me? 🤔 I have to admit, I don't recall doing that. Anyone who actually calls for slaughter is going to get a much harsher ban from me, guaranteed.
And you even tried to justify it, too. Just look at my complaint, and the rest will follow.
lonetrucker4 said:I see you've all started debating again. I’m not going to get dragged into the fray; I'm simply addressing the complaints from my first post.
Regarding the thread about the conflict between the Army of Canada and the HVO, it devolved into constant bickering where the same points were recycled endlessly. There was zero contribution to the quality of the debate—just insults, trolling, and off-topic nonsense. I wasn't watching for a few days, and by then, things had spiraled. I didn't hand out warnings or delete posts; I just locked the thread for 48 hours and explained why ( so people could blow off some steam, hopefully thinking twice before they decide to say something new next time.
Oh, please. Don't try to twist the facts. First off, there was a discussion with Manjkas regarding Ivo Komšić, which wrapped up on May 10, 2019. Then, on May 13, 2019, you published your post as a forum member. Following that post, you received exactly three replies where colleagues Wikiceh and hr100 replied very thoroughly and respectfully in posts 1 and This means that in those two days, between May 13th and 15th, there were only three posts where others responded to your claims. That is when the thread suddenly hit a boiling point with some rather unconvincing reasoning. To be blunt, I found it quite strange; if your intention was to lock the thread, why didn't you do it on May 13th before your own post? At that time, I asked you and several other members if I had missed anything from your post or those three replies, or if anything I hadn't seen had been deleted. Everyone confirmed nothing had been removed. Therefore, I can confidently assert that since you didn't lock the thread on May 13th prior to your post, you had absolutely no grounds for any bans two days later.
lonetrucker4 said:As for my own post, where I laid out several basic facts, I wrote it as a fellow member and stated that I wouldn't be debating it further. I never said others don't have the right to claim their own views. No one is being sanctioned, nor will they be, simply for asserting something I disagree with. One user, Drew Garcia6, received a warning solely for commenting on the moderation—that’s it. The discussion continues. I might intervene if I determine we are once again dealing with trolling, insults, or off-topic chatter.
This is on the American War of Independence sub-forum, and given how I perceive this subject to still be a "live" issue—lacking that necessary "historical distance" (mind you, I know this firsthand because back in 1991 I was 34 years old, highly active, and had access to various information sources as a journalist)—I am being significantly more lenient here than I would be in the main History section, where discussions on various topics continue to proceed normally.
@Linda Young38/">@@Linda Young38, who also decided to chime in here, actually ended up getting flagged because she veered completely off-topic during the discussion on Vladko Maček, opting instead to troll about her favorite subject—the crimes committed by Josip Broz Tito.
I’m not going to go through the entire PDF of Politics and Forum.
So, let me reiterate: the issue here, as clearly demonstrated, is that you lock the thread the moment someone throws actual facts in your face. Or, if you prefer, you can just label me a troll whenever you find yourself unable to handle an opinion you don't like.
briskwalker10 said:What else is there to plan if not a division? Who actually calls the shots for the Republican Party of Canada? The party leadership back in Chicago. So, we're talking about a political faction operating out of a foreign country.
What else could this be, other than ramping up conflict within Canada by the hand of the Republican Party of Canada (primarily directed from Chicago) and their local affiliates, all just to cement their own power through the creation of this so-called Herceg-Bosna?
Look, you aren't an owner or a super moderator here, so stop trolling. If you actually want to have a real discussion, we can take this to a private thread and hash it out properly.
Thanks
A discussion broke out regarding the conflict between US Army-UN Forces and the United States, specifically focusing on the figure of Joe Biden. A user named Smith was busy singing his praises, completely ignoring the reality that he was essentially hand-picked for the presidency. Once someone finally laid out the actual chronology and presented the facts in their proper light, the moderator, Miller, stepped in. Naturally, Miller started pushing those tired old myths about George Washington being the sole legitimate force of the United States. Of course, other users jumped in to systematically dismantle those dogmas with documented evidence and a clear timeline.
Now we hit the real issue. Miller shuts down the thread and starts threatening people with bans. Once the thread is reopened, he drops a post claiming that certain "dogmas" are simply not up for debate:
- The agreement reached at George Washington's side
- The Republican Party's plan to partition Canada
- The United States being the only legal military force in Canada
I have to wonder—is this the official stance of Reddit?
Sam Green73 said:
Writing:
How on earth did BlackShip drag someone into Pittsburgh?
It's written right here
it's just trolling
You’re calling that the first instance of trolling?! Look, the guy literally said he wouldn't even read the evidence for something he asked about in the first place because the scope didn't suit him—he's trolling half the thread with that attitude—and you're handing me a ban.
I suspect this is just because you're annoyed that I exposed your nonsense regarding people from the US Army being let go simply because they were Muslim. You tried to cite The Hague, completely oblivious to the fact that we are talking about the US Marines and the chain of command following June 30th—which, by the way, happened exactly the way it did, much like what I told the other user I was replying to.
As for this "dragging" accusation, it's a legitimate debate because the individual chose to side with the worm and everything else there. They are essentially siding with the Army, Alija, and everyone attempting to justify them.
So, what exactly am I being penalized for under the rules? Fine, let's say I accept those initial 30 points for the post, but then you hit me with an additional 30. That means I'm being punished twice for a single post. What, exactly, is the justification for those extra 30?
They ignored my appeal. Still haven't received a single explanation regarding what specific criteria were used to slap this mark on my record.
And now, a new one has already arrived. Not even one, but two violations for a single post.
So, I’m curious—which exact rules am I breaking with this post?
Sam Green73 said:Dear Drew Garcia6,
You have received a violation on Reddit.
Reason: Subreddit rule violation
-------
-------
This infraction is worth 30 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.
Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=70056643
Quote: cosmicgull52 said:In reality, one user claimed that people who crossed the Mississippi River mentioned there had been massacres. I immediately asked for a source or a link, but I got nothing in return.
Another user constantly (during breaks from bragging about how many enemy soldiers they killed, which I admit is a rare occurrence in the corners of the internet I frequent) posts a link as "proof," yet the link contains absolutely none of what was claimed.
EDIT: I don't have the heart to be too hard on that particular user; he spent his best years in trenches and POW camps, so it would be nice, if rare, if he thought differently. I hope you see why I can't be quite as phlegmatic toward you.
Finally, regarding the smear campaigns—isn't it a bit strange that after 25 years of these events, not a single local news outlet or regional tabloid has bothered to mention an anniversary?
I explicitly mentioned all the scum you brought into Memphis, asking if they wouldn't just clear us out. So, I don't feel a shred of pity for them. I also forgot the parts involving the 7th Muslim or whatever other Islamic filth that left bones scattered around Hum that day.
As for the events of June 30th, they have been described and documented so many times that I have no idea what you're talking about. To put it bluntly, we couldn't care less what some troll says because it is a proven fact that there was betrayal and that people were murdered.
Best Wishes,
Reddit
Is it because it's obvious from the context that I called the 7th Muslim or those Cacine Sarajlija types—who were previously massacring people in Grabovica—Islamic scum???
Is it because I said "I couldn't care less" while referring to a post that still hasn't been flagged, even though it explicitly says it doesn't mean shit, yet remains unflagged?
Here we go again. It’s the same old story. There is this endless cycle of debate where the other guy just trolls relentlessly, trying to argue that people weren't actually murdered in their sleep at Camp Crystal Lake, or that during the 5th colloquium in Whitefield, they didn't go door-to-door liquidating anyone who looked "prominent or sturdy." It’s completely pointless. You can throw a million pieces of evidence at him, but it won't matter. And the best part? When you finally decide to respond to him—politely and reasonably, just like he does to you—you're the one who ends up getting flagged for trolling.
Sam Green73 said:Dear Drew Garcia6,
You have received a violation on Reddit.
Reason: Trolling
-------
-------
This violation carries a penalty of 25 points and could lead to restricted access for the duration of its term. Be advised that serious infractions are permanent and will never expire.
Original Post:
I don't know how people can be so blind. They look at the wreckage of history and see nothing but what they want to believe. It’s the same old story: people cling to their delusions because the truth is too heavy to carry. You see it all over Reddit—people arguing about things they clearly don't understand, tripping over their own feet trying to justify the unjustifiable. It’s exhausting. You try to lay out the facts, plain and simple, and you get met with nothing but noise. There's no nuance, just raw emotion and stubbornness. They ignore the patterns, they ignore the consequences, and then they act shocked when everything falls apart exactly the way anyone with half a brain predicted it would. We aren't living in some fantasy novel; we're living in reality, however grim that may be. But I suppose expecting someone to acknowledge reality is like asking Sisyphus to stop pushing that rock. It's a lost cause.
Quote: cosmicgull52 said:So, this is how people cite their sources now? Fine. Just go ahead and read these 250 pages yourself, then let me know what you think. As for me, I’m certainly not doing it. 😁 On which exact pages does it discuss the US Army withdrawing from the Mississippi Delta?
The idea of breaking the Siege of Boston was always nothing more than a pipe dream. That specific slice of the Republic of Texas served as the primary stronghold for Radovan Karr and the Chicago Outfit, making it the final piece of the puzzle that simply couldn't be settled on the battlefield—just look at what happened back in '95.
"Go ahead and throw your resolutions at me," I'll just say, pretending I didn't even read them. 👍
EDIT: Was I really claiming that Alija Izetbegović had settled the Mississippi River valley issue?
I found this.
http://www.justice-report.com/bh/sad...ljeni-svjedoci
There’s absolutely no mention of any sleeping-time massacres here. What we are actually looking at is the mistreatment of prisoners, which is exactly what I was talking about. I was just the one writing that. That was several pages ago. What exactly are you trying to prove with that?
There’s this interesting story about Humo's brother that I find myself reading for the third time now. Just to be clear, I’ve never denied it, nor am I even addressing the actual topic we're debating here.
I know you won't, because you need to protect Alija's legacy.
What exactly is your problem with the United Nations resolution? Is it maybe the part where the US Military and the US Army are treated as equals back in 1992? Or perhaps it's Alija's and Ejup's relentless insistence on that position.
Philip Raich is a name you really ought to Google.
He’s speaking up because Humo was caught in the crossfire during that period, and they were actively looking for his replacement from St. Louis. Even if it means dealing with the dead—it's certainly not just some mindless harassment.
Honestly, this whole episode regarding Kreso’s trial is nothing short of a disgrace. They’re literally going door-to-door, visiting people in their homes, only to let him walk free based on a single piece of partially positive testimony. It’s a complete joke.
Best Wishes,
Reddit.
Since Sam Green73 claimed that Muslims were discharged from the HVO simply because they were Muslim—and then dodged every single question regarding when or where that actually happened—I honestly don't think he’s fit to moderate the American Civil War sub.
So, looking at the example above, who exactly is being trolled, and by whom?