Posts by Harold Walker44

William Bennett53 said:Understood.
Let’s just stop worrying about Google and their ad algorithms; that’s a problem for people who actually have to deal with them.
The rest of it is already taken care of.

I suppose it’s good to know that's been noted.
Google doesn't exactly warn users that any filth they stumble upon isn't their concern, so there's no need for you to play moral guardian either—just say thanks for the heads-up and move on.
I would just like to understand what exactly has been "sorted" and by what means... if the posts haven't been removed, I can only assume you consider such content to be perfectly acceptable here. Is that the case?

Michelle Evans said:I'm quite well aware of the rules here. For instance, you aren't allowed to share psychiatric diagnoses with others, and pedophilia falls under that category... It feels like people are dancing right on the edge of that line. Besides, I didn't join this community as a moderator, just as a regular user...

The forum rules prohibit erotic content on pages where Google runs ads. The owner explicitly stated this in the guidelines, as the site is intended to be a family-friendly platform...

I was simply addressing the allegations regarding pedophilia that have surfaced here... just like everyone else has. Engaging in these discussions isn't against the rules, regardless of what color your username is. I haven't touched on anything else; the PDF containing this topic isn't under my moderation, and I maintain my right to post as any other user would... besides, I have no business interfering since I'm not an admin. Those in charge will make the final call...

Regardless of whether you classify it as pedophilia, it’s clearly a description of sexual acts involving a minor. Under U.S. law, if the individual is under 15, it constitutes a crime...

It isn't exactly clear. There’s no mention of the age group involved, and there is a massive difference between just writing poetry and actually committing crimes... Or have they started making arrests just for fantasizing about criminal acts in their verses?

Just as a quick side note, has anyone here reported those bookstores to the FBI or other agencies? I was thinking of places that stock titles like Lolita or an American psychiatrist... some pretty fascinating literature...

You continue to demonstrate that you don't fully grasp the rules established by whoever appointed you as super-moderator, regardless of whether you find anything controversial here or not...

Explicit text and extreme profanity

Google ads may not be placed on pages with explicit text or extreme profanity. Examples include, but are not limited to, pages containing:

erotic stories and/or descriptions of sexual acts
sexual explicit jokes
erotic or sexual forums, bulletin boards, and/or discussion groups
sexual or profane terms in the URL
crude language and/or excessive amounts profanity

https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/4410771

Google explicitly prohibits this. Are any of you even running Google ads?

Move the page to the dark web if you want to host this kind of content. If Google is advertising on it, it implies the forum is viewed as a family-friendly site...

Regarding the descriptions of violence and the possibility of sexual relations involving minors, I have already stated my position. You seem indifferent to it all, handing out warnings to users who are clearly revolted by the content...

Michelle Evans said:It would be helpful if people actually understood what pedophilia entails before they start tossing psychiatric diagnoses around so recklessly...

Pedophilia refers to a sexual preference disorder where an individual finds prepubescent children (specifically those who have not yet developed secondary sexual characteristics) sexually stimulating, reaching arousal through fantasies involving prepubescent children or actual sexual contact with them.

Click

It would certainly be a benefit if you were appointed as a supermoderator, someone intimately familiar with the rules governing this particular subreddit...

The rules of this platform clearly prohibit erotic content on any pages where Google is running advertisements, a point the owner explicitly emphasized when establishing the guidelines... after all, the site is intended to function as a family-friendly corner of the internet...

Regardless of whether one classifies it as pedophilia, it is patently obvious that we are looking at a description of sexual conduct involving a minor. In the United States, if the individual involved is under the age of 15, that constitutes a serious crime...

And even in the end, there is this relentless, underlying push to promote violence...

Anthony Perez28 said:First of all, based on every forum rule and under American law, this individual should have been reported to the authorities immediately.
I find it baffling that the administration hasn't sanctioned him yet; things like this, even if framed as a joke (which is pathetic, uncultured, uneducated, and frankly, shallow, sadistic, pedophilic, slimy, and disgusting), ought to be reported to the FBI.
Let this Mr. Pervert continue playing games with those in charge and singing his little pedophilic songs to them.🙂... the police would meet him with nothing but handcuffs. 😉

This kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable. I truly don't understand how such a creep is still walking free.

I second this, and I am confident that someone will eventually report this to the authorities.
I've already filed a report with Google.

Report offensive content
Help
Use this page to report adult or objectionable content that is appearing in
URL:

Report content

URL Status Removal Type Requested
Thread on Reddit

wiredangler5 said:No, he certainly didn't attack him just because he's a veteran; we shouldn't frame it that way, nor should we characterize a police officer in such terms.
But if the officer overstepped his authority, there is absolutely no doubt about that. It is true that the law permits the use of force if someone resists arrest, but even that is strictly bounded...
I wouldn't categorize this kind of beating as an authorized use of force, and I suspect that whoever drafted the laws regarding police authority wouldn't want to find themselves on the receiving end of such tactics. They would likely tell you just as plainly that the officer beat him like a dog and crossed the line...

Let’s be honest and admit that what happened in Memphis was a clear abuse of power. I believe the officers involved were more than trained enough to subdue the individual and take him into custody without leaving him bleeding out on the pavement with severe internal head injuries—and then just leaving him there without any medical assistance...

From what I have gathered from the news reports, if they are accurate, the officer has apparently been suspended. To my mind, that speaks volumes about how he approached his duty and whether he exceeded his mandate...

I see no reason why we cannot call this type of policing brutality, or label the officer a savage. There are people like that in the police force, certainly. Yes, at that moment, they were performing the job the state assigned them—keeping the peace according to the law—but they surely had better options available, at least the one in question did. In the end, they could have called for backup from the rest of the department to handle those three men and make a peaceful arrest if they couldn't manage alone. They had plenty of ways to handle this, and all their options were wide open...

However, this particular officer had no right to act this way, so I see no reason why his actions shouldn't be described as sheer savagery...

By the way, this serves as an answer to coppermarlin13's question, and since I see that using that same terminology regarding the three veterans hasn't prompted any correction from the moderators, I am removing this card because I truly see no justification for it. Especially since, if it was issued, it wasn't applied equally in both instances...

My regards and my respect, for everything said above...🙂

Mr. Anderlon, here is an administrator who might actually be able to save this forum, which is slowly sinking into a heavy, narrow-mindedness born from extremely selective moderation, a lack of understanding, and a total absence of intuition, if you'll excuse my bluntness...😉

Sam Green73 said:I’ve been following the thread over at the FBI, and I’m just reflecting on what I’m seeing play out here...
Pure political theater and sensationalism...

You’re free to read this through an analytical lens and label it whatever you like—political maneuvering or sensationalist nonsense—but that misses the core of her inquiry. She didn't come here to debate the tone; she asked why she was being cardboarding, specifically whether such a post actually violates forum rules regarding hate speech, and how exactly you justify that classification. Her point remains: if her post was truly subject to being cardboarding, then one has to wonder why so many identical posts seem to escape that same fate...

A woman is raising a perfectly valid point here: is it legal for a police officer to be cited for "unprofessional conduct," yet somehow completely immune when they act like absolute thugs against everyone else?

And since when did labeling the behavior of public institutions as "lawless" constitute hate speech? You really need to stop making these things up and bullying users with your exhaustive, wildly inaccurate interpretations of the rules...

It’s the iPhone 15 here for the vocabulary, giving a solid 10 out of 10 for the dismissive tone—if you can even call a simple response to a post "dismissive"—and of course, those repetitive prepositions used just to insult a user... basically, if you don't align with the prevailing political correctness, you aren't allowed to say a single word without being brushed aside like some nuisance...

the Edge;47511866]Political correctness is the rule of the land, and you always have the option to take your business elsewhere.

I am forced to conclude that this "political correctness" the moderator Edge keeps invoking is almost exclusively a tool used to trample over any opinion that deviates from his own. Because, if I may return to my opening post—which hasn't received a single direct answer to this day—bans are handed out for minor infractions, yet when someone calls citizens mindless zombies who blindly head to the polls after Sunday service, there isn't a single report filed, nor are there consequences for the several forum members who pointed out such behavior on the thread itself... and since there is still no actual response to my point, I can only wonder if such a post was quietly scrubbed behind the scenes...

It feels incredibly selective. Far too much so. One shouldn't be using moderator authority to suppress political dissent; if you actually intend to participate in a discussion as a fellow member, Edge, you should be doing so with arguments, not mandates...

Alright, I see the post has been deleted now, but I’m wondering if the user was actually banned? It seems a bit inconsistent, considering other posts that were much more benign have been handled with a simple moderation strike rather than a full ban.

What really bothers me here is the lack of equal treatment. Personally, I don't believe any of the aforementioned posts warranted a ban; that’s just someone's subjective opinion, and since nobody actually insulted their interlocutors, I fail to see why the administration feels the need to lecture users on how to discuss public figures, ideologies, or current events... The moderator loneraven25 made a valid point: if a public figure happens to feel "offended" by a comment, the responsibility lies solely with the author, and anything else is just pure censorship. This is a forum, a place where people should be able to write based on their own perceptions. We all know what isn't allowed, but labeling a public official as a thief, a fraud, a swindler, or even a corrupt operative doesn't violate the forum rules we all agreed to when we signed up... There’s no reason to arbitrarily expand the scope of prohibited speech, especially when the law itself provides no such protection against mere criticism...

Or perhaps I should mention reading a complaint from a user who was slapped with a warning—the same old story—simply for questioning whether being "against" certain lifestyles while being "for" traditional family values is a contradiction.

Once again, Moderator Edge was quick to jump in and provide a prompt response.

It’s quite a sight to see a moderator so eager to lecture others on proper decorum; I suspect it’s the very same individual who previously lectured a user about not "insulting a cabinet member"—which is enough to make anyone's head spin—and warned against using certain terms, yet somehow finds absolutely nothing wrong with labeling people as "digitally illiterate zombies heading to the polls after Sunday service."

Look, you are more than welcome to run this as a liberal forum—call it "leftist" if you must, even if that isn't quite accurate—but at least have the integrity to admit you are merely a political mouthpiece. Just don't go claiming to be "America's premier forum," because once you start deleting posts and handing out sanctions, it stops looking like a genuine reflection of American opinion.
In the end, you can't be this brazen, pretending a post wasn't even reported while simultaneously rushing to punish much smaller infractions...

I reported this post earlier today:

Calvin Harris said:To me, it’s just proof that sheer stupidity is finally becoming digitally literate.
Though, I doubt things will look quite so bright when the zombies start swarming after Sunday service...

A few of us were actually discussing this in the other thread, and frankly, I assumed there wasn't a moderator active—that they'd just step in and nuked the post whenever they felt like it. But then I notice someone else's much later comment gets flagged, yet this remains untouched. How does that even work? How does a sentence like that fly under the radar?

edit

Actually, looking closer, I see this post was the one that got flagged. Trolling? What kind of trolling is this? Meanwhile, that hate speech above... nothing happens, everything is just fine...😕

I haven't seen a single word from tomisličak lately... one wonders if they've finally succumbed to the crushing weight of reality, or perhaps they're simply watching the slow decay of everything we once thought mattered, with that same silent, weary detachment that seems to be the only rational response left in this fractured world... The user says:
The rules ought to be applied with absolute consistency, without exception or bias...
If we had been able to intercept that kind of propaganda when it first started surfacing, perhaps things wouldn't have spiraled quite so far out of control...

And then what? Was that just something Uncle Charlie cooked up on the fly, or is it an actual rule...

wanderingheron52 said:I fail to see why everyone is getting so worked up about escalating tensions over this... if people are simply choosing to write in their own native language, or if they’re going as far as designing massive banners and flags just to make a point, I don't see any logical reason to start banning speech...
Perhaps the most honest approach would be to conduct a formal census of everyone on this forum, because if it turns out that more than 33% of you fall into that specific category—and I have a nagging suspicion the number is actually much higher—then everything being said here is strictly by the book...

Let’s be clear here—this particular rule applies strictly to official documentation, such as the formal lettering on seals and stamps, the designation of representative, executive, or administrative boards at the municipal and county levels, and the standardized headers for legal instruments, including the names of cities and streets... It simply doesn't extend to those instances where you find yourself standing right in front of the central offices of the Federal Courts, the Commercial Courts, the Administrative Court, the High Misdemeanor Court, or the Supreme Court...

I honestly don't see any practical reason for this forum to ever adopt Cyrillic script; besides, very few people from the younger generations even recognize it anymore, nor do we have any real need to... if you're that determined to use it, you might as well just switch over to Chinese characters...

Sam Alvarez4 said:I’ll provide as much objectivity as I possibly can...
First of all, the use of Cyrillic shouldn't be permitted on this portal at all. It really comes down to whether we're talking about a moderator, a super-mod, or just some random commenter... but regardless of who it is, seeing it on certain threads is just incredibly irritating...

This is it...

I appreciate you reopening this thread...🙂

Could an administrator please be so kind as to explain why this thread was locked in the first place?
I would appreciate it if someone could point me toward the specific rule regarding thread closures... perhaps then you might decide whether to simply delete the topic after a while once it's no longer relevant.

edit

Even if we set aside the fact that this isn't particularly relevant—given that we are just discussing a forum thread and there hasn't been any actual disruption—even a news article suggests that The Administration's anonymous assault on the Supreme Court feels like a regression back to 1945. This whole situation has unraveled a series of critical issues, ranging from the influence of intelligence agencies and the integrity of the judiciary to the interpretation of laws and our obligations under international treaties...

Charles Fox10 said:If Viviane Reding says it's over, then I suppose it's over; she likely knows her business better than any of us...

http://nytimes.com/news/us/politics/v...---306112.html

I don't see what that has to do with anything; this isn't some fleeting news clip that just expired. This remains a significant issue—one that clearly continues to capture the attention of this entire forum, judging by the sheer volume of posts and views we're seeing here. Feel free to tweak the headline if you must, but let's not be ridiculous...

There’s no actual debate happening on this thread, everything is just moving along far too smoothly, which makes me wonder, WTF?...

Political Compass: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

Jack Moore90 said:Isn't it strange how they just shut down threads that aren't even causing any trouble?🤷

I honestly can't believe it. It’s just absurd... they’re essentially slamming the door right in our faces on an issue that is incredibly vital and very much alive...😕

Charles Fox10 said:Look, the discussion is winding down, and if we aren't finished by New Year's Day, we’ll just start a new thread or reactivate this one... until then, you have plenty of other topics to sink your teeth into on the PDF archives. It's all just politics, whether you're attacking or defending the Administration's latest moves.

I was actually going to ask the same thing, because nothing is really settled yet—everything is still very much in progress. Besides, I feel like the conversations here are quite substantive and the topic remains incredibly relevant, so seeing this current thread locked left me a bit stunned... I was right in the middle of typing out my response when I saw your post. I have to say, I haven't encountered this kind of practice where threads are shut down mid-discussion on any other forum I've frequented...😕>

These aren't "meaningless" topics; they simply run counter to the rules. This implies that deleting or locking a thread under the guise of it being "meaningless" isn't actually supported by the rulebook... it’s just an arbitrary expansion of existing regulations. And what follows is the realization that being part of the administration—specifically you, in this instance—allows one to impose their own personal value systems as if they were universal norms. I won't accept that...

edit
Just out of curiosity, how many threads have been locked or users penalized with 100 points simply because, for example, they failed to specify which moderator to address or which PDF they were contesting?

• Threads that lack clarity regarding the core issue cannot be resolved and remain subject to being locked.

Locking should be the exception, even though you told me on a different thread that most threads end up getting locked anyway. If we look at the closed threads—just take the first page or even just the first two pages—how many of them truly fall under the category of being "unclear or vague"?

rustydrifter10 said:If someone isn't contributing anything useful to the discussion and happens to be provocative or just plain unpleasant, there really isn't much else to say...

The truth is, you have to maintain options, because dismissing someone as "useless" shouldn't be the standard when engaging with a user. And as for what qualifies as "provocative"—I can wrap my head around insults or threats, but anything beyond that feels like an overreach. It feels like you’re forcing your own perspective on us under the guise of managing a public forum, which creates this illusion that everything we write here represents a consensus... especially once posts are deleted or threads are shut down. That simply isn't the reality, and by acting this way, you're essentially practicing censorship...

It's because the appeal was reviewed and the question was answered. Once a matter is settled, we typically close it out.

I can only speculate about how that works, given that you deleted the initial thread started by Splenda but left the two follow-ups active, making the whole thing look disjointed and nonsensical. Either clear the slate entirely, or stop trying to tilt the scales like this...