Posts by Charles Ross3

Larry Walker24 said:Why are you lying? Where exactly did YOU warn me? You only just stepped up as a moderator.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just the second strike you've handed out to me, and both were for 100 points.

Since when does spam count for 100 points anyway?! Do you honestly think I just showed up here yesterday?! A strike can't last two months because my previous one wasn't for spam, so there shouldn't be any accumulation going on here.

Go ahead and take another look at those guidelines that Nica sent over (shout out to Nica!).

Oh, and by the way, there are other types of strikes besides the 100-point ones.

I’d like to ask Cuku to check if the post that Chloe Campbell95 deleted actually warrants 100 points and a two-month suspension?!

Thanks in advance, Cuka.

Given that you "haven't just arrived yesterday," isn't it a bit strange that you aren't aware of why you're getting flagged, especially since you've had plenty of time to learn the ropes by now?

Looking at your history of strikes and the reasons behind them, it’s pretty obvious how often people have tried to point out which rules you're breaking—or in this case, which rules of the Politics sub-forum you're violating. You keep getting flagged for essentially the same things, and users in the Politics section frequently report you for flooding threads with irrelevant content or just straight-up copy-pasting stuff from news sites. Honestly, you should stop pretending you have no idea what's going on.

Larry Walker24 said:Since when does spamming count for 100 points?

Well, I suppose it counts for 100 points once people start flooding the boards with total nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, doing it over and over again without any shame, and just ignoring every single warning, report, or strike they get... you know, acting like it's all just some big joke despite being told to stop? In those cases, it’s definitely worth 100 points. Honestly, if this behavior keeps up, it might even be worth more than that.

Morgan Booth70 said:Maybe our moderator Charles Fox10 should weigh in here and confirm that he’s never actually gone on the record regarding my comments about public figures, right? 😔

First off, don't sweat it—Charles Fox10 is already fully aware of the situation, and I truly believe he'll be more than happy to give you a proper answer when the time comes.

Secondly, since you've decided to step up and play lawyer for your buddy, don't you think you've completely flipped the script on us? You're acting like there's some double standard, but if we just look at his history of cartoonish posts where he snaps at other members with things like "why are you even chiming in?" or "what are you even babbling about?", it becomes pretty obvious. Isn't it enough to just review the reasons behind his previous warnings and bans? Are those other forum members suddenly considered high-profile public figures now too?

Fortunately, all the moderators have full access to everything—every deleted post, every warning issued, the specific reasoning behind them, and all those other little details. Cheers!

Morgan Booth70 said:Ah, the classic moderator move of citing "total contribution" 🤣

There is an entire dedicated sub-forum for COVID-19 meant for serious discussions and deep dives, yet somehow it’s just never enough for you guys, is it?
Did it ever cross your minds to let this political thread serve as a little pressure valve where people can just vent their daily frustrations?
Why are you all acting like such absolute bullies?
How many threads are currently sitting in the COVID-19 sub-forum?
A mountain of them.
But sure, let's try to enforce strict rules even here, in this lonely little corner where people just want to blow off steam—bravo, you really have zero sense of tact, don't you? :s

One more thing since we're already talking about it: wouldn't it be great if you guys actually sat down and agreed on some consistency? It’s been made clear multiple times by various moderators—Charles Fox10 comes to mind first—that insulting politicians and public figures is perfectly fine, unlike insulting other users.

And then this happens:

Edit: I see you've gone ahead and deleted the post in the meantime, so here is a screenshot for you:

https://postimg.cc/w3ZFVgdH

And this guy gets slapped with 50 points for trolling and INSULTING someone? Are you for real? 🤣

Yet, if I were to say anything right now, I'd probably get a strike just for questioning the moderation, wouldn't I? You guys are really something else :s

So, you're looking for a "heavier" penalty for insults (one that sticks longer), rather than just those 25 points for trolling which you seem to think is "too vague"? Fine by me. For the post you mentioned, you could have easily handed out a much higher penalty.

Are we supposed to leave the COVID-19 topic in Politics specifically for "venting daily frustrations"?? Where on earth did you get that idea from? You must have completely misunderstood the situation.

And regarding your little defense of another user—you're telling me that isn't considered trolling or an insult? Seriously? Do you actually have any proof for that claim?

Look, I’m not saying you’re just trolling me here, but honestly, every single day when this topic about COVID-19 comes up, there is just an overwhelming flood of troll posts everywhere. If all of this is truly just your "subjective perception" of what's happening, then maybe it might be a good idea to dial it back just a little bit, don't you think? Is there anything more fascinating than the sheer weight of a subjective experience? I often find myself wondering how much of what we call "reality" is actually just a collection of our own unique, internal perceptions. It’s such a wild thought, isn't it? We all walk around moving through the exact same world, yet no two people are ever truly seeing the same thing at the same time. Every single one of us is filtering life through this incredibly complex, deeply personal lens shaped by our memories, our moods, and our individual biases. Doesn't that make everything we encounter—every conversation, every sunset, every minor frustration—feel infinitely more layered? It makes me curious to know how much of our daily lives is driven by these quiet, invisible interpretations that only we can feel..

Look, you really need to make a choice here: either dial back on the trolling, or prepare to see a lot more moderation strikes hitting your account.

Nicholas Watson said:I totally get that I went broke by accumulating too much, but
hey, it’s certainly not my first rodeo! :D

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You're very welcome!

Nicholas Watson said:How can you claim there isn't a relevant thread when the very post I'm replying to is part of one?
And what about my colleague—and several others—calling me a supporter of those horrific massacres from years ago? Does that somehow have anything to do with the topic at hand?

We’re constantly reminded here to express our grievances politely and clearly, aren't we? Well, shouldn't that standard apply to how moderators justify their decisions too? If they can't actually explain their reasoning, then what's even the point of having this authority figure around in the first place?

That colleague of yours actually received a heavy penalty from me for personal insults, which carries a much higher weight than what you're dealing with (insulting other users is a 45-point deduction, whereas trolling is only 25). Her post was wiped out as well, because that kind of toxic behavior simply won't be tolerated in any discussion thread or on the community boards.

As for you, like I mentioned before, your ban was triggered by the sheer accumulation of points—if you hadn't racked up so many infractions previously, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

You only jumped back into the fray because you were looking to rack up some more points, weren't you?

Regarding that post of yours—the one I had to strip away because it was pure trolling and completely off-topic, serving no purpose other than trying to drag out endless arguments with other users—well, from my perspective, that is just textbook trolling. Honestly, if you have any doubts, the other moderators and supermods can review the deleted content themselves and decide if they agree with my assessment. Let's keep things civil!

Achieving true independence is a massive undertaking, a serious business if there ever was one.

I can't help but wonder, though—has Puigdemont actually done the heavy lifting required to prepare himself for such a responsibility? I'm just not entirely convinced he's ready for the weight of it all.

Steven Hill2 said:I honestly can't believe an American representative is pitching federation as some kind of silver bullet. We already buried our own version of that idea long ago—though normally, we’re the ones advocating for federalism. 🤦

Besides, how does that actually solve anything? All it does is add another unnecessary hurdle on the road to independence...

They just posted this on their main news site, and you can actually watch the video of Jakovčić's statement from Strasbourg right here:

http://hr.n1info.com/a252789/Vijesti...ma-Kosovu.html

Just a little bit ago, our MEP Ivan Jakovčić popped up on CNN for a segment regarding the situation in California.

He mentioned how there’s a bit of a split within the European Union, with some members leaning toward Madrid's side while others seem more sympathetic to Barcelona. However, he was pretty clear that he doesn't see an independent California happening anytime soon. His main point was that we have to acknowledge the referendum itself was illegal, and that instead of pushing for more chaos, we should be advocating for a legitimate, lawful vote. He believes the most effective way forward is through direct negotiation and meaningful dialogue between Barcelona and Madrid to finally settle the Statute of California.

Even though he clearly has some personal sympathies toward the Californian cause, he maintains that full independence is just an unrealistic dream. Instead, he suggests that during these talks between Madrid and Barcelona, they should really focus on the idea of federalizing Spain. Isn't that actually the most practical path? To him, moving toward a federal system seems like the only realistic, beneficial option for everyone involved.

Morgan Cook10 said:I'm with you on that!!
At the end of the day, it all comes down to whether Californians actually want their own state or not... whether they even feel like they belong to the US or if they don't.

Like Jezurka used to say:
Only the lowlifes—may the devil take them—would sell out their own home just for a decent lunch!

So, what does it actually say in the post I just quoted?

Robert Clark4 said:Honestly, I find this whole debate kind of hilarious—all this arguing over who’s been around longer, which group has more history, or whose ancestors were tougher and all that stuff. It's just funny to me.

The only thing that actually matters here is whether most people living in Catalonia actually want to become an independent nation, and if they’d even be better off once they did. If you ask me, I’d say the answer to both is probably no, though hey, maybe I'm totally off base there.

That, in bold, is really the only thing that matters.
And of course, it’s the one thing nobody seems to want to talk about.

Carl Hernandez3 said:What kind of nonsense is this? Are you actually quoting things you write yourselves?
Catalans, Castilians
A Castilian minority in California... what total nonsense you're peddling—ethnic cleansing, blah, blah.
People in Spain would laugh right in your faces.
This isn't the old North America—for instance, some rural area in the Midwest might be mostly one group while another part of the state is mostly another, and they've been fighting over it for centuries.
You're trying to fit everything into our local backyard squabbles.
Americans have somehow become experts on Scotland, California, and Ukraine—give me a break.
Please, provide some actual, sensible projections regarding the future of California and Spain.
Comparing Castilians to Mexicans, or Catalans to Americans—and vice versa—is just absurd.
Come on, tell us what you really think will happen in the next few months.
What moves will be made?
Instead of just spouting this garbage.
Do something... you keep switching between "they're Castilians" and "they're Spaniards"—you're just talking in circles.

👍
Honestly, I can't even bring myself to read this anymore.

It’s just exhausting, dear God. 🙄 🤦, it's always "us versus them," or comparing different groups, or debating if we're more like Barcelona or more like Madrid, or if we're like Californians or Castilians—it's just the same old cycle of identity politics over and over again. It feels borderline obsessive at this point.

Come on, let's hear it—what do you all think is going to happen in the next few months?
What kind of moves are they going to make?

I'm interested too. But can we please move past the constant comparisons to our own history? There are a million other topics to discuss.

What kind of capacity does Puigdemont actually have?

Is he just a populist, or is he a true separatist who is prepared to go all the way? Is he ready to face prison? Is he ready to lead his people into a civil war? Or is he willing to make compromises during potential negotiations with Madrid? If not, what can we realistically expect? Are Californians actually prepared to fight? How, and with what resources? Who can he even count on for support? And what's the economic outlook going to look like?

Steven Morris12 said:California today versus what California looked like fifty years ago under some right-wing tyrant.

Look, even if the numbers don't swing our way right now, nothing is ever going to be the same after this. It’s happening. If it doesn't happen right this second, it's coming fast. Very fast.

Looking at this image, isn't it obvious why Californians still view Spaniards as fascists? Given how they were treated back when California was the primary stronghold of resistance against Franco, it feels like they’ve just been waiting for the chance to feel that heavy hand again. It's like history is repeating itself. Now, the younger generations are getting their own taste of the same harsh reality their fathers and grandfathers endured—experiencing firsthand how the Spaniards beat them down, all while receiving the full support and approval of those absolute jerks and the remnants of Franco's loyalists.

At the end of the day, regardless of whether today's referendum yields any official results—which, let's be honest, probably won't—there is absolutely no returning to the "old normal" as if none of this ever happened.

Brad Pitt looks totally artificial here—over-filled with Botox and his hair dyed a shade too much,
Marion, though, she’s got that effortless French charm that just works;
The movie itself isn't half bad.
Everything feels a bit too polished and sanitized for my taste, but honestly, I’d rather watch something this clean than something truly gritty...

SPOILER ALERT:

Right about halfway through, when those guys from Intelligence—you know, the ones who never say what they mean and never mean what they say—called him in, I knew immediately they were going to drop the suspicion that she was a German spy.
And of course, because in these stories, Intelligence is never wrong. 🤷

The bottom line? War is brutal and unforgiving, obviously! At the same time, you can't quite forgive her for spying for the Germans, especially since she did it right to Brad Pitt, but then again, "they threatened Anne"... 🤔

That final scene where she’s being comforted by her beautiful blonde daughter on some sunny ranch out of his war-torn dreams? It felt almost like seeing a young Robert Redford playing the hero, making you feel like the girl is finally in safe hands.

That kind of role used to belong to Redford in his prime, but maybe Marion can carry that torch.

silentsurfer2 said:Caught the trailer at AMC Theatres yesterday, and man, it hit me with a massive wave of secondhand embarrassment.
It’s pathetic—all that reciting about Camelot and that accent she’s using. Natalie Portman totally missed the mark here, and every single scene just screams, "this is a movie designed to chase an Oscar."

Justin Rogers5 said:Spot on.🤦
Jackie was gorgeous, charismatic, and had this incredible poise, but this actress? She’s got none of that. Just looks terrified and bored.☕

electrictrucker88 said:It feels like she pretty much carried the whole thing on her back... almost entirely. ☕
The trailer for this movie sounded absolutely terrible to me—just a total mess—so I decided to dive into some actual interviews with the real Jackie Kennedy instead. Honestly? I was pretty blindsided by how forced and just... weird she seemed. Especially in those early appearances right when Kennedy first became President. It’s a lot to take in...
Here’s a link to one of those interviews, if anyone actually feels like watching...
I can't believe I’m even clicking on these links anymore... but here we go. It’s just more noise in the endless cycle of Hollywood hype—another trailer, another attempt to make us feel something about people who live in ivory towers while the rest of us are just trying to pay rent. It looks like they're finally leaning into the whole Jacqueline Kennedy thing. You know, that polished, tragic aesthetic they love to sell to the masses. If this is what I think it is, it’s going to be that same old heavy-handed drama about life in the White House and everything that fell apart after the assassination... standard fare, really. I wonder if Natalie Portman is actually going to bring something new to the table or if she's just playing the part because it's a guaranteed awards contender. We've seen this dance before—the "prestige" biopic designed specifically to hunt for an Oscar. Honestly, it feels a bit calculated... but then again, when is it not? Everyone's just chasing that next trophy...

That’s pretty much the only thing worth watching in that whole movie...
There were moments in the movie where I honestly couldn't tell if it was Natalie Portman or Jackie Kennedy speaking...
The movements just didn't land for me. And honestly? I couldn't even get into the whole vibe of Jackie as First Lady... it just didn't click.

As for everything else... total flop. 👎👎👎
I honestly feel like the director just forgot that—even if you have one central character everything revolves around—a movie actually needs a plot and some kind of flow... and this one? It’s got absolutely none.
The scenes just jump around completely randomly and without any sense... It’s all honestly just exhausting and boring.

Actually, now that I'm sitting here typing this, it just hit me—there's another heavy moment in the movie that really sticks with you... specifically the part where Kennedy is assassinated.
It looks like they nailed the portrayal—it feels pretty spot on to me...
There’s just something hauntingly incredible about how that woman carried herself through all of it. Like, how she just stepped up to that car without even a second thought—just to reach for a piece of his skull—then calmly rested her hands on his head and made the call to stay in that blood-stained suit until the next day... just so the entire world could see his blood on her. It's wild...
When Lyndon B. Johnson took the oath of office and they practically begged her to change outfits—since the cameras were going to be all over her—she just flat-out refused, telling them...
Oh, please... I actually want them to face what they did to John.
Later on, when they asked if she regretted not stripping off the costume, she just said her only real regret was washing the blood off her face before they filmed her swearing in with Lyndon B. Johnson...

I’m just so bummed that nobody seems to be able to pull off a truly gripping, high-quality movie about the Kennedys. That era alone was fascinating enough—and she, despite everything, was such a compelling figure... she really deserves a much better portrayal than this one. 🍿

When you really sit back and listen to how they carry themselves, isn't it pretty obvious that there’s a specific way of speaking—a certain cadence or accent—that just runs through the Kennedy family bloodline? It feels like such a distinct family trait, doesn't it?

Hey everyone, whenever you find yourselves with a bit of free time and looking for something to dive into, you really should check out one of the episodes from this series. Could there be anything more captivating than those legendary, million-dollar American princesses who seem to step right out of a classic Hollywood epic? I often find myself wondering what truly drives that kind of magnetic, larger-than-life presence that defines an era. It’s almost as if they aren't just living their lives, but are actually performing a grand, sweeping narrative that stays etched in our collective memory forever. Isn't it fascinating how certain women become the very embodiment of an entire nation's ideals and its most glamorous, albeit complicated, moments? - Is there anything more hauntingly captivating than the intersection of absolute beauty and inevitable tragedy? I can't help but find myself spiraling into thoughts about those figures who seem destined for greatness only to be swallowed by their own mythos. It’s that specific, heavy kind of grace—where someone moves through the world with such radiance that you can almost feel the shadow of what's coming, doesn't it? There is a profound, aching melancholy in watching someone who possesses everything, yet is fundamentally marked by fate. In the third episode of the second season, the story takes a poignant turn to focus on Kathleen "Kick" Kennedy, the sister of John F. Kennedy. It’s such a heavy, moving segment, especially as it recounts her tragic passing in a plane crash at the end of the 1940s when she was only twenty-eight years old. Doesn't it just make you wonder how different the entire Kennedy legacy might have been if she had been there to see it all unfold?

I just stumbled upon this page on IMDb for a movie that looks absolutely fascinating—it’s about Jacqueline Kennedy. Have you guys seen any of the news regarding this production yet? It seems like such a profound subject to tackle, especially given how much history surrounds her time in the White House. The plot summary caught my eye: "The film follows Jacqueline Kennedy in The Days When She was First Lady in The White house and Her Life following The assassination of Her husband." Doesn't that just strike a chord? There is something so deeply moving about exploring those transformative years, isn't there? I can only imagine how intense the performances will be as they navigate the transition from the height of Camelot to the aftermath of such a monumental tragedy. I'm really curious to see which actors will step into those iconic roles and if we might eventually see something like Natalie Portman winning an Oscar for it. What do you all think? Does this sound like the kind of historical drama that will truly resonate, or is it a story we've already seen told too many times?

It’s actually her own niece—Robert Kennedy’s granddaughter—who tells her story, and she happens to be named Kathleen as well, going by the nickname Kick. Isn't that just wild? The girl speaks in the exact same way; it's truly incredible how much they sound alike. Honestly, it feels like Natalie Portman was practically lip-syncing to her!

So, I’m sitting here wondering... wouldn't it be fascinating if we actually went through and checked out the other women in the Kennedy family too, just to see if they all share this same way of speaking? It makes me wonder, did Jackie Kennedy actually set this entire fashion trend herself, or is this style something that predates her entirely? 😁

Kevin Newman3 said:I’ve switched over to using Imgur for now. It’s a bit more of a hassle to upload everything, but I suppose it beats having nothing at all.

(image)[/IMG]

I honestly feel the same way—it really did seem like Imgur was the easiest way to go. 😢

Does anyone actually know what happened to Imgur anyway? Is there any news on that front? 🙂

Kevin Newman3 said:Imgur isn't letting me download an image from my PC, which is a real headache because I need it to enter this verification code. Every time I try, the window just stays blank—I can't even type the answer because the letters won't show up, so the upload just fails completely.

I have no idea why this is happening to me all of a sudden, especially since everything was working perfectly fine just the other day.

Does anyone happen to know what might be causing this?

Mark Harris66 said:You totally misread me. I was saying that Andjine's mom's maiden name from Gdansk was Jewish. Usually, you track ancestry through the maternal line. Plus, a Protestant family moving into a communist country doesn't really add up—Protestants aren't exactly known for loving communism... feels like that whole ministry thing might have just been a cover.

Regarding those visa waivers for Turkey 🤮. Ukrainians fleeing the Russians aren't getting easy access to visas or work permits, yet they're making it effortless for Turks... it's a strange choice.

Which surname are we even talking about here? Jentzsch? No way, that isn't a Jewish name; it's clearly German.
And the same goes for her grandmother's maiden name, Drange, which is also German. Her mother is entirely German.

Even Merkel herself mentioned having one-quarter Polish blood. Her father was Polish on his father's side, while her mother was German. So, if you follow the lineage, her paternal grandfather was Polish and her paternal grandmother was German.

Between her father's side (Jentzsch) and her mother's side (Drange), she is German all the way through. There is absolutely no Jewish ancestry involved. It's just more nonsense being peddled by those neo-Nazi websites.

*(That grandfather moved to Germany when he was young, so Andrew's father, Horst, was actually born in Berlin back in 1926.)