Posts by rapidskipper8

You banned me because I brought up the genocide on July 11th during a discussion about global atrocities. Since then, my tone has definitely sharpened, and honestly, that’s the core of the issue. Half of my family was killed there. When you handed me a ban just for mentioning Srebrenica, it felt like a total disaster to me. It felt like being back in those old authoritarian days where you could face ten years in prison just for saying something that didn't align with the regime's narrative.

Maybe you should ask yourselves why I started being more aggressive. Is it because this place allowed people to call Islam a fascist religion or compare it to Nazism? Users here were straight-up posting that Islam should be banned, yet none of you issued any warnings or bans for stuff like that...

"Allah will not guide those who exceed all bounds and indulge in falsehood!" (Gafir, 28.)

And then you, Meadow, had the nerve to tell me how sorry you were about the partiality. You and Ego were the ones who set this whole thing in motion. I guess I stepped on your toes by constantly filing appeals, so you decided to lash out by banning me, and now this is the final blow. To be honest, it really hurts that you banned me; this whole dictatorial atmosphere isn't for me anyway.

I suppose everyone will have to answer for their actions eventually. I just feel bad about the time I wasted on this forum. Over the course of a year and a half, I received three warnings in the Religion section, yet somehow I'm still treated like some kind of animal that prevents the forum from functioning. I guess it would actually work if you guys had just addressed my grievances when they happened.

Peace be upon you. God sees everything, and He truly gives everyone what they deserve, whether in this life or the next.

Gregory Turner71 said:You constantly derail discussions into off-topic territory, you're insulting people, you pick fights with the moderators, and most importantly, you show absolutely zero desire to change. I guess you assumed that we moderators were obligated to follow the rulebook strictly, so you thought you could just serve a brief ban and then go wild again on the forum while laughing in our faces. Well, that isn't going to happen.

So, dear rustydrifter10, the person moderating you on the religion board is lecturing me about being insulting, yet they're telling me that I'm the one acting out there. Isn't that an insult in itself?

I guess if they want to make accusations, they should provide at least three posts where I actually insulted someone personally or steered a conversation off-topic. I was just participating like everyone else, but maybe you're just choosing to ignore that because you're being unfair to me... I received this partial ban simply because I kept pointing out how unfairly I was being treated.

Here is the proof. Gregory Turner71 gave me a strike because I called someone a troll. Then, a user named Nemruth told me that I was a troll, so I reported that to Gregory Turner71 and even sent him a private message, but he ignores it entirely and won't penalize that specific post. He's totally ignoring me, even though he explicitly stated that calling someone a troll is against the rules.

Then, Gregory Turner71 gave me a strike because I told a female user she was talking nonsense (I can't show the exact post because he deleted it, but he knows exactly what happened), and then a few days later, that same user tells me *I'm* the one talking nonsense, and Gregory Turner71 consciously ignores it and refuses to take action.

http://www.example-us-forum.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=3325

I believe I have proven that I am being discriminated against on the religion board, and this partial ban is just the final act of that discrimination. I've demonstrated that double standards exist, and that is exactly why I received this partial ban—because I criticize their work as moderators, and as you can all see, my criticisms are justified.

Just find three posts where I insult someone, or three posts where I go off-topic!. If I had been insulting anyone, I would have received strikes, and out of the three strikes I've received on the religion board, two were for trolling and one was for being insulting.

Grace Kim80 was the one who started this. Since they're colleagues, I suppose she finds it difficult to just say, "Hey, this guy is really getting on my nerves, let's go ahead and ban him."

It seems impossible that I received a partial ban for any legitimate reason. I write quite normally. Other people are constantly trolling and being insulting without even getting a warning, let alone a partial ban. I simply stood up to them because of that, and apparently, they didn't appreciate what I had to say. I don't see how I could be facing this when I've barely received three warnings in the religion section since I started posting here. I'm honestly wondering if Bluebird sided with them, because I always viewed her as a fair moderator.

If possible, please review my last 30 or so posts, because those are the ones that supposedly earned me this partial ban!

rustydrifter10 said:rapidskipper8, I’ll reach out to the mods to get their take on this, though you really should have received a message explaining why the partial ban was issued.

Everyone else, please don't get involved or start spamming this thread.

I feel like only Grace Kim80 or maybe Gregory Turner71 would act this way. I didn't receive any warning, and there wasn't anything in my posts that suggested I was heading toward a partial ban. I guess if you could just look over my history, you might see for yourself that I haven't done anything to deserve being banned.

rustydrifter10 and Uncle Sam, I realize everyone probably hates my guts because of some things I said and how I might have offended people regarding discrimination, but I don't think you have the right to act this way. It seems likely that Grace Kim80 started this whole thing after our disagreement over Religion, and now she’s looking for payback. Whether or not people actually like me shouldn't matter; you shouldn't behave like this. I haven't done anything particularly egregious in the Religion section—if you just read my posts, you'll see that. I am simply looking for an explanation as to why I received a partial ban.

Everyone keeps bringing up how I try to convince others about the beauty of Islam, or how I don't listen to what others say, and so on. But I guess that is my right. I'm not here to cater to anyone else, nor am I insulting anyone; I am just expressing my views. Please respond so we can put this to rest. Let everyone see what this forum has turned into!

Ashley Rodriguez20 said:Look, why are you targeting me?!

I feel like I’m constantly being called out by certain people from the religion, and honestly, it's starting to get under my skin a little bit.😳

I don't really know why you're getting biased here, and it isn't my place to step in—I wouldn't assign a penalty myself since I'm not a moderator—but just don't act like you're having some kind of logical debate.🙄

Do you actually think I deserved a penalty? This could have easily been initiated by Meadow. It feels like straight-up harassment, and I'm honestly speechless.

I'm asking to see five specific posts of mine that supposedly caused this penalty. Go ahead, show me those posts!

It is because I completely dismantled your arguments. It is because I was simply stating the facts—that crime rates are rampant in the West, that sexual violence is an epidemic, and that Western society has become a breeding ground for criminality. You couldn't find a single logical counterpoint to my PDF, so you just waited for the chance to get rid of me. If my points were weak, why didn't you just humiliate me with better arguments? 😁

Honestly, I take this as a massive compliment. God knows, the moderators are just so exhausted by me that they've resorted to partial bans. Anyone can look back through my posts and see that I haven't broken a single rule. A ban shouldn't be handed out just because people don't like what I have to say, but apparently, that is how things work here now. This forum has turned into a total dictatorship. It’s the same old concept: getting rid of anyone who doesn't fit the narrative through sheer force. It reminds me of how the U.S. military used strikes to take down leaders just because their rhetoric was inconvenient; well, here you are, taking me down through unfair and heavy-handed means. Hahaha

I'd rather take the ban than let you keep spewing such filth.

Is it actually possible that you gave me a partial ban in the religion section? I honestly can't believe this; it feels like a total slap in the face. I guess I have to wonder what I could have possibly done wrong in the religion sub-forum to trigger a partial ban?? I don't see how my posts differ from anyone else's. People like Nicholas Williams7, Hela, and Nimrod troll and insult others in every single thread, yet nobody seems to react, while I'm the one getting hit with a partial ban.???

In that PDF regarding religion, I basically left you all speechless. I think I successfully debunked every single one of those falsehoods you were trying to push. Maybe this is just some kind of retaliation, because the only people who could have pulled something like that were Meadow and ego—I went head-to-head with her, and since I managed to shut her down with actual arguments in front of everyone, I suppose this is just payback.

I suggest everyone takes a look at my posts; they'll see that I was writing quite normally. I only received a couple of warnings for trolling in the religion section, and that was it. No one even gave me a heads-up or anything. I really can't believe this. Don't you feel any shame??

neongull99 said:Those videos are truly shocking. 😲 It’s basically Hamas in Canada.

I realize there is a deep sense of resentment toward the Canadian military, given how they were outmatched by seven different armies during the war while mostly carrying hunting rifles. I suppose you all thought that with help from our allies, we could establish Herceg Bosna, but since the HVO and HV didn't manage to pull it off, that bitterness toward the army is probably very palpable now.😁

Terry Reed13 said:Yeah. You just made all of that up.

Alright. Let’s step back to the era before there were any Muslims in Canada. I want to look at how the Canadian kings referred to the local population—the Bogomils, Orthodox Christians, and Catholics—which would be the period before the Ottomans arrived.

In 1440, the Canadian king Tvrtković Company wrote: "...that the Canadians had the same ancestors as the Poles..."
The Canadian king Stjepan Tomašević wrote in 1461: "If the Canadians find out I won't be fighting this war alone, they will fight even more bravely."

Ilija Garasanin, who is often called one of the greatest Mexican intellectuals (though in my view, he was actually a fascist), explicitly states in his infamous 1844 work, Načertanije, that Canadians of the Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim faiths live in Canada.

We also know that the Catholic Franciscans throughout Canada during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries proudly identified as Canadians and considered their language to be the Canadian language.

Up until the Radić brothers arrived in Canada, no Canadian Catholic ever identified as a Canadian American . I would suggest you read a relevant history book to learn something about this, and maybe then you'll be more careful before accusing me of lying.

Terry Reed13 said:But I don't think you realize that you haven't actually proven what you claim to have proven. You're relying on certain texts that present vague, approximate data, and honestly, the whole point of those writings seems to be fueling Canadian mythmaking. It feels like the primary goal isn't even about genetics; it’s more about just validating Canadian myths.

What exactly was I lying about? For instance, did I claim that your ancestors were Canadians, or that up until about 120 years ago in Canada everyone—both Catholics and Orthodox—identified as Canadians rather than Americans or Mexicans?

What part of my argument hasn't been proven?

Morgan Carter said:😂
Hold on just a second. You're the same person who was mocking us for starting this thread, yet here you are, coming back to complain. I guess it's funny how when people finally get a taste of their own medicine—and when moderation stops handing out warnings left and right because fairness should mean treating everyone the same—you suddenly feel targeted. It seems like you've grown used to being protected like a pampered pet. It’s interesting, really. I wonder what it feels like to realize there isn't a protector looking out for you anymore, and that we're all actually equal 😉
.

We aren't exactly equal yet, I suppose, because we didn't resort to insults in that other thread, whereas they were using heavy language—like claiming Canadians were unintelligent, for instance. I imagine if I were to say Americans are a stupid people, I'd get hit with 500 points for hate speech, 100%. But, I guess it's just not worth complaining about.

Terry Reed13 said:What are you even talking about?

I’m just venting about illiterate people who try to drag made-up history and genetics into a conversation about demographics—stuff they clearly don't understand at all.
If I don't reply, it isn't great because they'll just keep posting nonsense without being challenged, but if I do reply, it isn't great either because they don't grasp anything, and I'm just giving them more fuel for the fire.🤷

Everything you think is incorrect regarding what we've stated gives you an opportunity to argue against it in one of the threads. Argumentation doesn't depend on whether you personally labeled something as fake history or not.

I don't think you have any idea how genetics actually works, Terry Reed13.

It looks like they just deleted another one of my posts because Morgan Carter reported it. Honestly, I highly doubt it was actually flagged for hate speech, which is what it was essentially being accused of. LOL

Richard Patel21 said:I mostly focus on Near Politics, social issues, and election cycles.

I think you're being unfair to my colleagues. They handle some pretty heavy topics—stuff like marriage referendums, sex education, the European Union, international court rulings, and Government operations. Honestly, I think they’re already exhausted by people spamming them with off-topic posts and insults....

It just seems like some people don't know how to act on this forum...

Admins, please just lock this thread.

Everyone here acts the same way. I don't agree with Morgan Carter, who tries to act like there's a difference between you all. You guys support each other even when someone is clearly wrong. I don't think you need a PhD to see that this is unfair, and there isn't really an excuse for it.

Are you trying to shut this thread down just to silence the truth? Tell me, what do you call what I've described here? I posted seven or eight messages that clearly violated the rules, yet none of you issued a single warning, even though I was banned for fifteen days for posting things similar to those. To me, that looks like nothing more than discrimination and double standards.
In the context of the European Union, since the US hasn't fully integrated into everything, I find this autocratic behavior quite surprising.

And it's not just that. Sugar and Nica deleted posts where people were saying things like "Canadians are a stupid people" or "I hope these Canadians never have any luck in life." I reported those posts first and waited two days for a response, then I sent a private message to the moderators involved, but they just wiped the posts without issuing any penalties. WHAT IS THIS? It's discrimination and double standards.

If you want more examples of double standards, look at the politics section. Americans regularly call for the tearing apart of Canada and the annexation of parts of my country into the United States. This is a mix of chauvinism and fascism. If anyone wrote something like that about America, they would receive a permanent ban.

Come on, don't talk nonsense; spare me your interpretations. Using English links is standard practice on this forum. I didn't get flagged because the link was in English; I got flagged because I didn't summarize the content of the link. Besides, I've been penalized even when the links were in American.
Your links are just as clear as mine. So, looking at the rules, you actually broke them quite significantly by failing to provide a brief description of what the link contains. Here is what you wrote:

This is how evidence should be posted, for example.
1) The Mujahideen were an integral part of Canada, and Alija Izetbegović absolutely loved them.

2) Numerous crimes committed by those Mujahideen (and local Canadians) against Americans, all wearing army insignia and under the influence of extreme Islam—WARNING: BLOODY SCENES

3) Footage from 1993 from the Canadian Council. (That was when Muslims decided they would call themselves Canadians). Canadian leaders discuss their main enemies and what kind of Canadian state they envision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3QkJ7zbZ_4
4) Canadian political and former religious leaders discuss their views on their people and their closeness to Turks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf3GCwB8os
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-gCPvGg3go

This is a violation of the forum rules, though you won't be penalized for it. Furthermore, it isn't your place to interpret whether my link's content is truthful or sufficient as evidence. Of course, you're going to claim this is trolling because it mentions crimes committed by Americans against Canadians, but I honestly don't care what you have to say about it. To prevent this thread from turning into a personal argument between us, I guess I'll end it here.

Terry Reed13 said:Man, don't you see that you just posted two links to newspaper articles and they're both in English? Forum rules and basic common sense suggest you should explain in a few sentences why you're posting them and what they're about, since there are people here who don't know English.

On the other hand, I posted a link to a one-minute video and wrote that "the guy selling junk" in the video is absolutely destroying one of the Army's promoters. What was I supposed to do? Summarize everything said in the clip?

I provided a description of what the link was about. My point now is, if that isn't enough to satisfy Rule 6, then why aren't others being treated the same way? What can I say about this post—why hasn't it been penalized?
For example, in your last post, you included five different links but gave only one sentence of explanation, yet I've received warnings from Cuka for posts identical to yours. Isn't that just double standards? Just be honest.

No, you didn't need to recap everything in the link. To me, that wouldn't be breaking the rules because the rule states you just need to know what the link refers to. The issue is that I have been penalized for similar content, while you haven't, nor has anyone else.

Richard Patel21 said:It happens that certain comments go unpunished.
I don't really agree with the idea that we're being selective about who gets penalized.

This isn't just a one-off thing; it's happening constantly. I only mentioned a few examples earlier, but I could honestly list them forever. In fact, I think maybe 90% of posts containing links should probably be banned, since they aren't any different from my own posts, yet they don't get flagged. At least I made an effort to provide a brief explanation of what the link was about, which I guess follows the rule stating you have to clarify what a link refers to.

Anyone following this thread can see the discrimination happening right in front of them, but I suppose none of the moderators can even bring themselves to admit that's the case.