Posts by Dennis Campbell4

It’s just... without any real reason at all...
I mean, how are we even supposed to label you then? Naive?

The real issue here is that the "moderator" was actually permitting the exact kind of behavior that the first two subforum rules were designed to prevent. And naturally, people started clashing over it... some were just joking around, while others got a bit more heated. But then, instead of simply removing those posts and issuing bans to the actual offenders, the "moderator" went and handed out warnings to everyone else...

Grace Wood5 said:Look, pardon my French, but what the hell were you thinking?
It’s no secret that lonetrucker4 isn't exactly everyone's favorite mod, but that’s not even what this is about. We aren't debating whether he's a good or bad moderator.
This is just a blatant attempt by a certain group of concerned users to drag us back to the days when people could basically do whatever they wanted on this forum—troll whoever they felt like, and then report the person they provoked just so they could rack up warnings and bans.

Now that those tactics aren't working anymore, suddenly lonetrucker4 is the worst moderator in the US, and I see people trying to hide behind personal attacks to make him look like a bad guy too.

So, driftingtinker has taken over the reins now (meaning he's doing more of the heavy lifting here), and since he doesn't have much patience for bullshit, I think the concerned complainers will find themselves much more satisfied moving forward.

Please... take a moment to read through this entire thread from the very beginning... then, if you wouldn't mind, go ahead and review the general forum guidelines... and after that... it would be best to look over the specific supplemental rules for the VPiT section as well...

Since you’re acting exactly like a "moderator" anyway, I didn't exactly misread the situation... though I see you trying to wash your hands of it now. But it just isn't working.

So, look... am I actually cleared to post a PM here or what? That's really the only thing I need to hear from you. Just a simple yes or no...

lonetrucker4 said:You're posting in the "Military History & Tech" sub-forum. I'm still technically a mod there, but per our deal, we've got another moderator stepping in to help out now. Should make things smoother for you.

Look, I never said moderation was just picking sides or playing favorites with the rules. Unless—and I can't quite recall right now—you asked if that was the case and I hit you with some sarcastic "Yeah, you nailed it" nonsense.

The truth is, you caught a few strikes in that thread about the future of the Air Force's supersonic tech because you were bickering, throwing insults, and trolling. Then you took a shot at the mods, which earned you a warning. You kept pushing and trolling the mods again, so you got a one-day ban. It all stemmed from those anti-vax takes that were central to the appeals you're bringing up.

So, we’re really going to play these games now? Fine by me. If you’re looking for a fight, you’ve found one... Just give me the green light to post that private message of yours right here on the forum... then everyone in this country can see exactly what you were saying behind closed doors...

So... I mean, if we're being honest here... why hasn't anyone else been hit with sanctions for this? It's the same thing... constant, repeated violations that have been reported over and over again... it just doesn't add up...
Please... provide some actual substance. If you just drop an unargued claim like "the F-16 is better than the MiG-29, period," I’m going to have to delete it without a second thought. It's just not productive... We need depth here. Instead, try something more like, "In this specific tactical scenario, the F-16 holds the edge over the MiG-29 because this particular variant features these specific avionics suites, which allow for X type of engagement, ultimately leading to Y outcome..." That kind of reasoning... it matters. And honestly, if you include links to back up your claims and prove your point, it really goes a long way in encouraging the conversation...
If someone asks you for the source behind your claims... well, you really ought to provide it. It’s just common courtesy, isn't it? Telling people to just "go look it up on Google" or giving those dismissive "find it yourself" responses... that honestly just comes across as trolling. It's unhelpful... and frankly, a bit lazy...

And honestly, that fine for defamation... it’s just laughable, really. I mean, take a look at this post... I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, though perhaps it’s already common knowledge for most of you... regarding the recent discussions about the energy sector and those shifts in policy we've been seeing lately. It seems like everyone is quite certain about where things are headed, yet there’s a lingering sense of uncertainty that I can't quite shake... I was reading through some reports from ExxonMobil the other day—just trying to make sense of the fluctuations—and it struck me how much our local infrastructure depends on these massive, centralized decisions. It's a bit overwhelming, really. One moment everything feels stable, and the next, the regulatory landscape shifts under your feet like sand... Dennis Campbell4 was mentioning something similar in a thread a while back, if I recall correctly. He had a point about the long-term implications for the average consumer, which I think is something we often overlook in the heat of the debate. We get so caught up in the immediate political theater that we forget the quiet, steady erosion of predictability... It makes one wonder, doesn't it? If we aren't careful with how we approach these transitions, we might find ourselves standing in the middle of a very different landscape than the one we prepared for... anyway, just some thoughts I wanted to put out there. No guarantees they're right... It’s funny how certain phrases just... they stick in your head, right? Like that old expression about running ahead of the steamroller... or being too early for the inevitable. It makes me think of those political maneuvers you see on the news sometimes... specifically back when Barack Obama was making his moves. There was this sense of him always staying one step ahead, or perhaps, being the very force that the momentum was building toward... I can't quite put my finger on it... but it feels like a variation of that same idea... being out in front of the machine before it even arrives...

A quick little preface here, since my attempts to get some clarity on how lonetrucker4 handles "moderation" keep getting wiped out...
So, I’m starting this thread to formally request that we strip lonetrucker4 of his moderator privileges. From what he’s told me himself, his idea of "moderating" is really just picking and choosing which rules to enforce based on his own whims... applying them partially, or even discriminatorily, depending on who he feels like targeting at any given moment.
In a previous thread about this very issue, Amanda Diaz told me point-blank that I hadn't provided enough evidence, and then she went ahead and locked the whole thing before I could even upload my files. I tried reaching out via DM to ask her about it, and then started this new thread to pose the question properly. Her response to my message was essentially a "no," and the original thread was deleted anyway...
It makes me wonder... why exactly are we allowing a "moderator" to stay in power when they won't even follow the community guidelines themselves?

I just can't seem to get a straight answer to this one... Is moderation actually just a selective and discriminatory way of applying the rules whenever a moderator feels like it, or is it about applying the rules equally to everyone involved to ensure we actually have a quality discussion here?
Please, lonetrucker4, don't bother replying to this post... I already know what your response is going to be.

That’s just it... medical criteria don't really have anything to do with the future supersonic components USAF is working on, because at the end of the day, AI is going to be the one doing the flying...
Go ahead and take a long break, honestly... maybe then we'll finally get someone in charge who actually enforces the forum rules without playing favorites...

So, it looks like J. S. has finally "burned out" and isn't handling the moderation duties anymore...

I sent her a private message...

Could someone please walk me through the differences between red, blue, and white prescriptions for medications?
I'm wondering when and under what specific circumstances each type is issued... specifically, which ones are covered by Medicare, and when does the cost fall on the patient—or their supplemental insurance, if they have any?
Thanks

My apologies... I ended up posting this in the wrong section. It actually belongs over in the desktop PC thread. If the moderators could find a moment to clear these two posts whenever they have the chance, I'd really appreciate it... since I can't seem to edit or delete post #7 myself. thanks...

I don't want to clutter things up by starting a whole new thread here...
For my brother—who, frankly, knows even less about hardware than I do—I’m trying to pull together some advice on building a machine. It needs to function primarily as a workstation, specifically for running stuff like AutoCAD and similar software...
Since he's on a bit of a tight deadline to get this thing bought, it would be ideal if everything could be picked up at a single local shop, including the OS.
Looking at his budget—which is roughly $1,200—this seems like the most viable direction to me:

But, I was thinking, instead of the GTX950, we should swap in a Quadro K620, throw in an extra 8GB of RAM, grab a 128GB SSD, and install Windows 10.
I'd really appreciate it if you experts could weigh in... let me know if I've missed the mark, or if there's a better way to spec this out within those constraints...
Thanks