Posts by John Palmer9

Michelle Nelson4 said:I’ve never really understood this whole concept of kids "missing out on playtime" once they start school. In my experience, my kid just kept playing with friends every single day and weekend for years afterward. It’s just that the *way* they play changes—it’s less about organized games and more about hanging out outside with the crew, kicking a soccer ball around at the local park, or just cruising around on their bikes. A kid who is naturally social and loves being active isn't going to suddenly stop being that way just because they have a backpack now. Honestly, I don't see any real benefit in keeping a child in preschool just for the sake of extra playtime.

👍

Seems like a point well made.
I suppose one issue with delaying school is that parents sometimes subconsciously treat their child like a little project or a toy, finding it convenient to push back that first day of kindergarten.

@dasak.vetra

There’s that old saying about how birds of a feather flock together, I guess. You should probably just find your own crowd—people who actually get you and share your interests. Plus, if you're busy with work or whatever, you probably won't have much time to hang out with everyone anyway.

@dasak vetra

Some people head to clothing-optional beaches and others don't, which I suppose is just how it goes. Both ways are totally fine, so your hesitation about getting too physical might actually be the most normal thing about everything you've shared so far. It seems like you probably just need to find someone who’s on the exact same wavelength as you are.

Sarah Hall53 said:So, I’ve got this very average five-and-a-half-year-old girl—she was born just a month after the cutoff date—and honestly, everyone around me is riding my back like I'm some kind of criminal. They keep asking, "Why aren't you just putting her in kindergarten this year? If she starts in 2024, she'll be SEVEN AND A HALF!"
And seriously, what's the end game there? Is she going to be sitting in high school coloring in books because she's behind?
The thing is, it's so obvious that she isn't emotionally or mentally ready for school yet. She’s stubborn, she doesn't take "no" for an answer, and she really just does whatever she wants. If I actually dropped her into a classroom this September, I’d probably be spending every single week in parent-teacher conferences because she refuses to follow directions—or rather, she'll just do her own thing whenever she feels like it, regardless of whether it's time to work or not. 🤦

I'd definitely suggest enrolling her. Sure, there might be some growing pains, but those things are usually easier to manage once they're actually in the school system.

feralharbor13 said:Look, I don't feed my ego and I sure as hell don't go hunting for validation from other people—which, honestly, feels like everyone else's entire personality these days. We’re living in this massive culture of ego-stroking. That’s why social media is such a circus; all those selfies, the desperate hunt for likes, checking follower counts... it’s all completely irrelevant to me. I don't care about posting my own life on socials (I have a few accounts, but whatever), and I definitely don't spend my time scrolling through them. It's mind-boggling to me how people sit there for an hour straight on Instagram, obsessing over who went where, what someone ate, or where some influencer is vacationing. Most people just function like that now. To them, I'm probably boring. And when it comes to relationships? My idea of an ideal connection is seeing each other maybe three times a week. Everyone needs their own space. I want two independent people who choose to be together because they actually enjoy it, not because they're codependent. But the guys I deal with? They always want these suffocating, symbiotic setups. They want us together every single day, doing everything together, acting like I don't have a life outside of them. It's like dealing with a toddler who throws a fit if Mom isn't home from work right on schedule. I've had guys literally cry on me because I suggested we wait three days to hang out. They act like I don't care at all, or they start hallucinating that I'm seeing someone else. It’s especially pathetic when it happens at the start of a relationship. Like, seriously? I've known you for twenty days and you're already acting like you can't breathe without me?

Most people in relationships naturally want to hang out with their "other half" more often than your standard of three times a week. So, they end up sending those "I miss you" texts and things like that. I suppose if you weren't actually feeling the absence, you wouldn't feel the need to send a text saying you miss them.🤷

feralharbor13 said:Most people honestly just bore the hell out of me. I’ll be sitting in a restaurant, grabbing coffee, or traveling, and I can't help but think: My God, these people are sitting here rambling about absolute nonsense while Leonardo da Vinci was busy painting masterpieces and Dostoevsky was pouring his soul into books that actually gave something to humanity. And what have these people contributed? Absolutely nothing. So yeah, people don't exactly adore me either. They see me as cold, distant, and totally unapproachable.

Well, that’s kind of how you come across, I suppose. It's like if you were hanging out with a physicist and you start talking about Dostoevsky and Avogadro. I mean, the whole point of talking is to actually connect, not like 🙂 this 😒 instead of
.

Harold Chavez6 said:Where our conscious thoughts wander can lead to some pretty fascinating conversations, I suppose, but letting obsessive thoughts take the wheel? That’s just destructive when you're trying to build any kind of meaningful relationship.

Shared interests definitely make a bond stronger, but even at an American Historical Association convention, historians don't spend every waking second talking about history.

Maybe try keeping your own hobbies separate from your partner's—it might actually make everyone a little happier.

👍 nice one, pretty spot on

fadedrider17 said:"It isn’t the coldness of the world that keeps you up at night—it’s the coldness growing inside people. It’s that gut-punch feeling when someone who used to be your closest confidant walks right past you like you’re a complete stranger. You aren't afraid of the elements; you aren't worried about a storm or a blizzard. What actually terrifies you is seeing how everything around you—the people, the objects, the very events we call life—has become nothing more than a hollow, artificial facade.

The world's chill isn't the real enemy here. No, what you're actually terrified of are the missed opportunities from your past—the tenderness you failed to show, the love you didn't return when it mattered. You fear the deafening silence that settles in once you're left alone. You fear a society of people who have forgotten how to speak kindly, who don't understand the weight of a genuine smile or the simple necessity of a heartfelt hug. It isn't the climate you're scared of; it's the total erosion of respect and basic humanity. It's the frost settling in the human soul."

- Mario Žuvela

A quote from an educator I follow quite closely—he always seems to hit the nail on the head, at least in my book.

It's probably not the wind, just a chill in your neck🤷

If you have cash on hand and other solid assets, like some high-end real estate, you’ll probably find yourself fitting in just fine. Actually, I guess you'd fit in perfectly. Otherwise, maybe all you've got left to lean on is religion, faith, or the Church.

I’d probably suggest breaking things down into really short bursts, like telling yourself, "okay, I’m going to tackle this specific task for the next thirty minutes." Or maybe even shorter, like just fifteen-minute increments if you're having a rough day.
There are plenty of books out there about beating procrastination or building up some self-discipline, I suppose. I won't list them here, though, since I think the moderator prefers we don't drop book recommendations in these threads.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Even Orwell couldn't have dreamed up something like this, especially considering it's been eighty-four years... anyway, on December 9, 1983, it's pretty obvious that things had already arrived in our country
and just imagine what kind of academics we're dealing with here... I guess they wouldn't even let them into a local county hospital because they don't take cases quite this heavy (just speaking from personal experience, 🕺)

A janitor, a doorman, and an electrician—that’s the trio running the show over at the Mexican Academy of Sciences and Arts... straight from the security desk.

This was during the era of Milka Planinc's administration, when she was trying to stabilize the economy after the country hit a crisis following Tito's deathvecernji.hr/milka-planinc-gurala-stabilizaciju

By making these pointless attacks on the moderator Zoran Oštrić, you're probably just strengthening his position. We've probably concluded about ten times by now that Oštrić's moderation style is basically suffocating the History subforum, which I think has driven away most people who actually wanted to write something substantive or constructive. It feels a bit like a fascist tactic, having a moderator with clones who exist just to insult other forum members.

nimblemoose72 said:Look, just like you accuse me of fueling some anti-wax hysteria, I'm calling it like I see it:
you're paranoid. Plain and simple.
Someone like that shouldn't be a Mod.
As for why you're still there, or why you keep twisting facts and content,
only the people keeping you in that spot know the truth.

Anyone interested can head over to the thread and read for themselves...
I'm not here to spin anything. ☕

Over and out...

PS even my signature scares you... pathetic. 🤦

They own the site, so I suppose they can do whatever they want. Honestly, this might actually be a good thing; since traffic is so low, maybe they'll just start an "out with lonetrucker4" campaign on Reddit to drum up some engagement and get those numbers back up.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Nope, that's not how it works.
You're being totally unfair... I wasn't trying to tear everything down, I was just expressing doubt about certain sources...
And am I not allowed to do that?

Back in the day, I shared some quotes from a book by Vladimir Velebit... which obviously wasn't the smartest move because I ended up getting sanctioned for it... and he spent a good chunk of his work explaining the complexities of the conflict in Canada.

As for lonetrucker4, let me give you an example...
Take FDR, for instance... If I refer to him as Mr. Roosevelt a few times, lonetrucker4 jumps down my throat saying I shouldn't do it because I'm "confusing the public"... It's like they think we're all just mindless idiots who can't handle history unless it's spoon-fed to us through a tiny straw.
Or take Stalin... if I use his nickname, apparently that's off-limits too. I have to call him Stalin because that's just how it's done. It's standard practice.
Basically, you aren't allowed to write with any kind of flair or personal style without offending someone. You can't participate in historical discussion without it feeling like a grim, joyless slog of dates and doom.

There was even a time I started a thread about the concept of "partisans"... I can't even mention it, let alone share an opinion after reading up on it.
And honestly, that’s the most ridiculous part about lonetrucker4. It's like: "Sure, go ahead and read ten books, but don't you dare form an actual opinion." Don't have a thought. Just regurgitate a quote. That's the rule.

And that brings us back to our massive rift over how to interpret historical sources.
lonetrucker4 insists there should be no investigative questioning in the Encyclopedia of the former Yugoslavia, whereas I think we should absolutely be allowed to ask those questions here on the forum. Why on earth not?

Look, I'm not saying I'm right. You've made it pretty clear that you don't think I am.
Fine... maybe I'm not. Maybe to a lot of people, I'm not.
But the point of a rivalry shouldn't be to destroy the community; it should be to beat your opponent with better arguments.
Out of all the moderators, lonetrucker4 has the most grievances with the PŽK group..
That could mean he's doing a great job, or it could mean the exact opposite.

At first, I thought it was just me... I figured I was the only one feeling this way. Then I heard from another guy... then a third... then ten more.
It’s become a massive circle involving over a hundred people...
And the majority of them are fed up with lonetrucker4.
The heavy-handed editing. The censorship. The rigidity. The persecution. The senseless sanctions... It's all piling up. And since lonetrucker4 can't bring himself to practice any self-criticism for personal reasons, the whole forum is basically operating at a massive disadvantage.

Honestly, lonetrucker4 has the temperament of an NKVD commissar... He watches everyone, thinks everyone is suspicious, and demands that every single comma be justified.

Listen, truthfully... I'm not the main focus here... But lonetrucker4 is a top-tier forum user, no doubt about it. He's genuinely brilliant.
But as a moderator? He kills the vibe. He crushes satire. He scatters the energy.
And that’s bad news....

If people don't want to participate, there's clearly a reason. Acknowledge that reason. Actually listen to them for once.

Hey, don't go disrespecting the FBI! I guess the real issue is just that there isn't much recognition for what moderators actually do so they end up acting out or spinning these wild conspiracies in their heads. For instance, he actually accused me of trying to deny historical facts regarding the massacres at New Orleans by claiming "we just don't have enough data yet and need to dig deeper"!

gentlestag15 said:It’s that classic "you can't fire me, I quit" energy—the kind where you tell your boss nobody else could ever do your job, and deep down, you know they're right.
I'm pretty certain they'd just post a job opening on the subforum
to scout out maybe five or ten potential mods.
Given everything he’s contributed and the sheer amount of work he’s put into this place, finding a replacement wouldn't be hard at all.
The problem isn't finding someone; it's that nobody actually wants to bother doing the work to make it happen.

1. It's a real issue that the History PDF section doesn't have any moderators left. Having just one person running things seems a bit silly, I guess.

2. We should probably have some sort of Code of Ethics for the moderators, where they might, say, guarantee they aren't just running alt accounts or acting as lobbyists for certain groups.

driftingtinker said:Like I said before, if lonetrucker4 decides to bail, that whole subforum is pretty much dead in the water anyway.

I'd like to think the leadership over at Reddit has people capable enough to manage a niche topic like History, even if it gets a bit messy. For someone who's actually steady, I guess the only real hurdle would be finding the time, since it probably takes quite a bit of effort.

Eric Newman75 said:Look, when I first showed up here back in early 2003, I was going by Stitch. So, by that logic, yeah—I'm a clone. But everyone knows that. I don't use my old retired handle anymore. I switched it after I took a break from the site, and ever since I came back in 2009, I've been posting consistently as Eric Newman75.

As for this whole "clone" theory? It's total nonsense. All three of these users have their own distinct way of talking and their own specific style. You can't just flip a switch and mimic someone else's voice perfectly. You'd have to try pretty hard to pull that off, and even then, it wouldn't look quite right.

I suppose you just changed your nickname and kept moving under a different name, which isn't really what a true clone is.
A real clone is when you're operating multiple accounts at once, using one just to harass and attack other people on the boards like some kind of extremist mob enforcer.

Eric Newman75 said:Look, when I first showed up here back in early 2003, I was going by Stitch. So, by that logic, yeah—I'm a clone. But everyone knows that. I don't use my old retired handle anymore. I switched it after I took a break from the site, and ever since I came back in 2009, I've been posting consistently as Eric Newman75.

As for this whole "clone" theory? It's total nonsense. All three of these users have their own distinct way of talking and their own specific style. You can't just flip a switch and mimic someone else's voice perfectly. You'd have to try pretty hard to pull that off, and even then, it wouldn't look quite right.

I suppose for psychopaths, that wouldn't really be an issue at all.

Eric Newman75 said:Technically, you can't actually put a moderator on "ignore." So, what are you saying here—that we're looking at a case of self-censorship?

Total nonsense. Back in the day, someone like Dilecto Filio used to run around with two different handles—one for moderating and one for regular posting—and it was pretty similar to how Nitko Drugi handled things over at the Philosophy forums. But let’s be real: nobody actually follows that practice anymore. Not here, not on any other major US message board for that matter. It’s just not efficient, it isn't smart, and there's zero payoff. Especially when you consider that a massive site like Reddit or something similar would have hundreds of mods and admins on staff. Instead of creating the clarity you're aiming for, all you'd end up doing is making everything a confusing mess.

Just because you keep shouting some half-baked, ridiculous idea doesn't mean it suddenly starts sounding smart. It just makes you sound like a broken record.

That’s your take, I guess. To me? It just feels completely pointless. So, what now?

Whether there are quotation marks or not, I guess I won't bother commenting on whatever lonetrucker4 wrote.

Eric Newman75 said:Technically, you can't actually put a moderator on "ignore." So, what are you saying here—that we're looking at a case of self-censorship?

Total nonsense. Back in the day, someone like Dilecto Filio used to run around with two different handles—one for moderating and one for regular posting—and it was pretty similar to how Nitko Drugi handled things over at the Philosophy forums. But let’s be real: nobody actually follows that practice anymore. Not here, not on any other major US message board for that matter. It’s just not efficient, it isn't smart, and there's zero payoff. Especially when you consider that a massive site like Reddit or something similar would have hundreds of mods and admins on staff. Instead of creating the clarity you're aiming for, all you'd end up doing is making everything a confusing mess.

Just because you keep shouting some half-baked, ridiculous idea doesn't mean it suddenly starts sounding smart. It just makes you sound like a broken record.

That’s your take, I guess. To me? It just feels completely pointless. So, what now?

I guess there are clones everywhere if you look hard enough, especially with people claiming that kiseli1 and bluecyclist64 are just extensions of the moderator lonetrucker4. Maybe you’re a clone too, for all I know, but I’d at least like to know if I'm actually debating a clone.

Eric Newman75 said:Technically, you can't actually put a moderator on "ignore." So, what are you saying here—that we're looking at a case of self-censorship?

Total nonsense. Back in the day, someone like Dilecto Filio used to run around with two different handles—one for moderating and one for regular posting—and it was pretty similar to how Nitko Drugi handled things over at the Philosophy forums. But let’s be real: nobody actually follows that practice anymore. Not here, not on any other major US message board for that matter. It’s just not efficient, it isn't smart, and there's zero payoff. Especially when you consider that a massive site like Reddit or something similar would have hundreds of mods and admins on staff. Instead of creating the clarity you're aiming for, all you'd end up doing is making everything a confusing mess.

Just because you keep shouting some half-baked, ridiculous idea doesn't mean it suddenly starts sounding smart. It just makes you sound like a broken record.

That’s your take, I guess. To me? It just feels completely pointless. So, what now?

I'll stick to the forum rules, obviously, though I suppose that doesn't really stop me from having my own opinions.

Eric Newman75 said:Wait, haven't you mentioned lonetrucker4’s "Stalinism" in your appeals several times now? You keep whining about how "liberal thinking"—whatever that means—is being suppressed and how people are being chased off the forum. What is that if not an ideological clash? Or maybe just a disagreement over how to interpret the will of God?

If the fallout from events like the Lincoln Assassination era is the bone of contention—and let's be real, it is—then why do you keep spinning this same tired narrative in circles? There are historical studies, there are fairly accurate figures, and there is a clear consensus regarding the policies enacted by the regime back then. Do you honestly think your "liberal thinking" is going to make those policies any less genocidal, criminal, or shameful? Think it'll make that dark chapter any less catastrophic for Americans? What's the point of all this digging? Are you trying to argue that the death toll wasn't 130,000, but actually just 129,000? How does that change anything? Even if it were only a thousand, that regime would still have been a total disgrace, and those traitors would still be viewed as having sold out the American people and our national interests.

I guess you don't necessarily have to be some hardcore ideological Stalinist to try and push someone around like that, though. Maybe you should just ask him why he’s even trying to force the issue in the first place.

I've actually got lonetrucker4 on ignore, so I'm trying not to dwell on his posts or comments, though I suppose I did end up reacting to one of them once. I guess a moderator should probably just stick to moderating, rather than trying to jump into the discussions and arguments like any other regular member.

Eric Newman75 said:Wait, haven't you mentioned lonetrucker4’s "Stalinism" in your appeals several times now? You keep whining about how "liberal thinking"—whatever that means—is being suppressed and how people are being chased off the forum. What is that if not an ideological clash? Or maybe just a disagreement over how to interpret the will of God?

If the fallout from events like the Lincoln Assassination era is the bone of contention—and let's be real, it is—then why do you keep spinning this same tired narrative in circles? There are historical studies, there are fairly accurate figures, and there is a clear consensus regarding the policies enacted by the regime back then. Do you honestly think your "liberal thinking" is going to make those policies any less genocidal, criminal, or shameful? Think it'll make that dark chapter any less catastrophic for Americans? What's the point of all this digging? Are you trying to argue that the death toll wasn't 130,000, but actually just 129,000? How does that change anything? Even if it were only a thousand, that regime would still have been a total disgrace, and those traitors would still be viewed as having sold out the American people and our national interests.

The whole thing about Jasenovac isn't even the real issue here. The stance taken on this forum—that any calls for excavations at those sites amount to historical revisionism—is something we're expected to respect since the site admins set the rules, even if I think that logic is completely misguided. From a professional historiographical standpoint, and even from the perspective of a liberal democracy, it just feels like a total miss to me, I guess. It’s not really about the massive expenses, I guess.... Even if they don't turn up anything substantial, I guess that might just be proof that the official victim count from the DOJ isn't actually accurate.The idea that we aren't digging because finding nothing might prove the federal registry is wrong is exactly the kind of thing historical revisionists live for, I guess. I guess the best way to push back against historical revisionism might just be to flood the zone with as many actual facts and details as possible, even the ones that seem pretty trivial. I guess it’s just like digging, if you think about it that way.

Eric Newman75 said:Look, we don't need to push lonetrucker4 out. Sure, he’s got his flaws, but he moderates with a level of consistency and fairness that’s basically the gold standard for what a mod should be. He laid down the law from day one: he isn't going to sit there and let anyone try to play down Nazi or Fascist atrocities. If certain people can't wrap their heads around the fact that we aren't talking about "creative interpretations" but actual, documented historical horrors—even after being told a thousand times—well, that's on them. Then you've got Jonathan Wright2, who seems to think History is just some playground for endless, empty theorizing. Sadly, he’s not the only one. And John Palmer9? He’d rather scrape content from sketchy fringe websites than actually do the work of citing a real book. Neither of them is getting flagged because of some "ideological vendetta," which is how they love to spin it; they're getting flagged because they’re missing the entire point. This is a scientific subforum. The focus is on actual knowledge and verifiable facts. If people want to prioritize entertainment or political grandstanding, they really ought to find somewhere else to hang out.

😲
I don't recall ever being flagged for ideological reasons.

The issue with lonetrucker4 is that his enforcement feels pretty inconsistent; for instance, he'll hand out a warning to one user saying "we aren't interested in your emotional outbursts," yet then a hundred posts go by filled with nothing but pure emotion—including several of his own emotional rants—without anyone saying a word.

If I take something from a professional historian's book—and I'd include the source too—and then I post a link to it, apparently that's a problem? For example, there's this site, maybe something like Britannica or a major university archive, that I like to use, and almost every single entry explicitly states, "this was published by this specific historian in this particular book."
It was recently the anniversary of some famous historical figure's birth, and while some historians celebrate him, others label him a criminal, listing specific names of victims, so I thought posting that here for a discussion would be fine... at least under this moderation, right?

Emily Brown81 said:It’s in every single one of lonetrucker4's posts. The way he builds an argument? His endless patience? Pure gold. 🍿
We seriously need more mods like him on the other subforums.

The way he moderates without much principle has actually pushed away most of the people who were actually contributing anything useful.

On these subforums where things get heavy with politics, worldviews, or stuff like history and religion... I feel like a moderator should probably just stick to moderating. They shouldn't be jumping right into the middle of every debate, because then anyone with a different opinion ends up getting flagged, banned, or—even worse—having their posts deleted. It’s honestly pretty easy to play the provocateur when you hold the ban hammer.