Posts by rowdyangler

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the concept of "reputation management" in professional industries, and how much the goalposts for what constitutes a "fireable offense" have shifted over the last decade. It feels like we’ve moved into this hyper-sanitized era where the window for human error has shrunk to almost nothing.

Growing up, I watched plenty of guys in sports and even in my own neighborhood get caught up in things—drinking too much, a lapse in judgment, a brush with the law—and there was this unspoken understanding that if you were talented, if you were good at your job, and if you showed genuine remorse, you could work your way back. There was a narrative of redemption. You messed up, you served your time or paid your fine, you learned your lesson, and you came back stronger. It was messy, sure, but it felt human. It allowed for the reality that people are flawed.

But lately, it feels like the "brand" has become more important than the individual. We live in a world where an organization’s public image is curated by committees and PR firms that view any deviation from a "clean" lifestyle as a direct threat to the bottom line. It’s not just about whether you can do the job anymore; it’s about whether your existence causes a momentary dip in social media sentiment or a headache for a sponsor.

I find myself torn on this. On one hand, I get it. If you’re a leader, if you’re supposed to be a role model for young athletes or employees, how can you hold anyone to a standard when you can't even hold yourself to the basics? There’s a certain hypocrisy in being a mentor while simultaneously making choices that are objectively reckless. If you’re in a position of authority, you’re essentially signing a contract to be a certain kind of person, and when you break that, you’re breaking the contract.

On the other hand, I can't help but feel like we're losing the ability to forgive. There seems to be this growing trend where the punishment is immediate and absolute, often happening long before the legal process even concludes. We’ve moved toward this "pre-emptive strike" culture where organizations would rather cut ties instantly to avoid a news cycle than deal with the nuance of a person's actual situation. It feels clinical. It feels like we're treating people like replaceable components in a machine rather than complex humans who occasionally stumble.

It makes me wonder about the future of mentorship. If the penalty for a single mistake—even one that doesn't directly affect your ability to coach, teach, or manage—is immediate termination, then who is going to take the risks necessary to lead? Who is going to be willing to mentor the "troubled" kids or the "unconventional" thinkers if they know that any personal slip-up will result in their immediate erasure from the profession? We might be creating a class of "perfect" professionals who are utterly devoid of the empathy required to actually guide others through their own failures.

I’m curious to see where you all stand on this. Is the "zero tolerance" approach a necessary evolution to protect the integrity of an organization, or are we systematically destroying the possibility of redemption in the pursuit of a perfect public image?

I honestly have no idea how anyone could help you here.

You go on and on about getting banned, claiming it happened because you were commenting on the moderators—even though you claim you didn't mean to, and that you didn't even realize it was against the rules. But somehow, you still managed to circle around the topic and critique the mods, which landed you the ban. Then, in the same breath, you appeal it by asking *why* you got banned, right after stating clearly that it was because you were criticizing the moderation team. I mean, if you didn't know the rules, sure, but you've been on this forum for fifteen years.

And then, to top it all off, what do you do at the end of your post? You comment on the moderators again. 🤷

Seriously, I have no clue how someone is supposed to help you. It’s a real head-scratcher.

Mark Robinson said:I think 😬

I don’t really know what kind of facial expressions people are looking for here, but I mean, even Diana didn't have a ton of them to begin with, right?
Honestly, I actually like that she isn't overacting. If anything bothers me, it would be that—but it doesn't. Like, for example,

Ur. No. bes Kristen🤣 🤣 🤣

To me, Kristen is an outstanding actress—she has charisma and she's believable. That's true talent. I won't get into the technicalities since I'm no expert, 😬
and I'm not even basing this on twilight, which, to be fair, I haven't actually watched.

There needs to be a clear line between an echo chamber on Facebook and actual forum discussions.
The forum is starting to look more like a billboard where people just dump ads and propaganda instead of actually talking.
A forum should be a place for debate, not a free advertising space.
You can tell the difference between someone offering genuine criticism and someone just pushing a script. You can argue with a critique, but you can't have a conversation with an advertisement.

Besides, advertising costs money. Why should anyone get to post their shameless political PR—claiming Eric Adams is some kind of savior or some other candidate is a saint—for free on this forum under the guise of "free speech"? We all know how this works in America: private property is sacred, and free speech is whatever's left over after that.

If you look at a few posts, the distinction is obvious: some people want a discussion, while others are just there to shout their talking points.

Restricting those who are just spamming isn't ignoring the opposing view; it's preventing them from drowning out the actual debate.

Again, I’m saying we need to distinguish between hardcore partisans and mere sympathizers.
And let's be real, you can't have both sitting on the same bleachers.
Sure, we might misjudge someone occasionally, but I'd much rather deal with a wrong opinion than have a bunch of fanatics drown everyone else out. When that happens, it stops being a discussion and turns into a brawl.
If someone is looking for a fight, they can head over to Facebook.

Let's see how much "free speech" lasts on Facebook when someone calls another person a traitor or a foreign agent. Let's see how tolerant people become when they demand the other side be silenced. They won't be. Zero tolerance.
On Facebook, there are no moderators to complain to about being blocked or silenced. But here, people abuse the system by acting like they're being oppressed just because they can't run their little ad campaigns.

If someone signs up on the exact same day they drop their first post on a thread about local elections—and that post is just a mountain of claims and "facts" that can be debunked with five minutes of Googling—then it's obvious they aren't a real community member, they’re just a bot or a troll.
Look, this forum isn't some dumping ground where anyone can just unload whatever nonsense they want; it’s supposed to be a space for actual discussion and debate.
It's not a place for baseless accusations and condemnation. If you want to play judge and jury, go study law or history instead.

Why should I have to wade through absolute insanity like this when I come here to read a thread? People claiming that Eric Adams' voters are somehow agents for some extreme-left internationalist group? Give me a break.
That isn't freedom of speech; it's pure delusion or malicious trolling, which clearly violates the general rules. If you actually doubt that, I suggest you go back and re-read them.

Yeah, Sinclair hit the nail on the head there.

I’ve sat through this movie three times now. It’s fantastic. Every single time I watch it, I catch some subtle detail that slipped past me before.
The cast is top-tier, especially the teacher and the cop. And that tone... well, what more can you say about a total legend?
I might just give it another viewing down the road.
It’s such a shame Gregurević didn't live to see this finished. But hey, that's life. He basically dropped out of the academy early.

An uninformed opinion isn't really an opinion worth debating. It’s only right to moderate that kind of noise so we don't waste anyone's time or space here.
I won't even get started on how much it grates on those of us actually using concrete facts. Apparently, doing the legwork to be informed before jumping into a discussion is just an optional extra for some people.

Look, I haven't even weighed in on this thread yet, but I still made sure to do my homework by looking at things like this https://en.as.com/en/2020/06/06/othe...63_890018.html
just so I wouldn't look like an idiot if a debate broke out. It’s honestly mind-blowing how many of you feel entitled to participate in a discussion without having any of the basic fundamentals down.

CItat:

Quote : The Department of Justice’s official advice is: "As soon as the suspect is handcuffed, get him off his stomach.”

And also:

law enforcement officers were permitted to employ two types of neck hold (carotid neck restraints) on a potential suspect, according to the department’s Policy and Procedure manual, but only officers who have received specific training in how to correctly carry them out are permitted to do so.

Go ahead and guess—this officer hadn't undergone that specific training. Whether he actually read the police manual, ignored it, or simply didn't care is entirely on him.

The bottom line is that the officer who killed Floyd acted in direct violation of his own department's instructions and protocols. Now, there's always the possibility that these rules are just dead letters on paper while practice goes a different way, but regardless, someone had to call out why these rules exist in the first place. That's why the backlash hit him so hard—it could have happened to the guy before him or after him, too. But hey, there's an old saying for a reason: don't play with fire if you aren't ready to get burned.

I once called 911 because there was some guy just lying in the middle of the road

When the paramedics showed up, it turned out they actually knew the guy

I wouldn't bother doing that again unless I'm absolutely certain someone is actually hurt.

So your argument against hijacking someone else's topic is—what, they're my topics too? 😁 Are you kidding me? 🙂

Fine, I'm done playing defense for you; clearly, you can handle yourself.

Go ahead and ban him.

hiddenpuma75 said:The issue I am fully aware of is this: it’s simply the price one pays for the good stuff I find on this forum.

1) Occasionally, or even quite often, I write "provocatively" by intentionally praising Parsifal.😬

I know that rubs people the wrong way, so I'm curious to see how they react.
People just don't like folks who brag too much.🤣
I certainly don't act like that in my actual life.😉

2) But since I'm anonymous, I figured it was fair game. I'm not selling anything, I'm not running ads, and I'm certainly not trying to threaten anyone's standing or push them off the forum.

3) Then there's the deeper philosophical and spiritual challenge. I've written about this in more detail over in the philosophy section, so I'll risk being brief and potentially misunderstood here.

4) For me, life—and especially this forum—feels like a dream and a playground.
It's like an interactive novel, half reality and half dream, where I am simultaneously the writer, the character, and the audience.😲
It's my own creative workshop.

5) I'm sure many users here are making friends, looking to meet people, or keeping in touch privately. For most people, both the forum and their lives feel incredibly, deeply, intensely REAL. It's a blend of the private and the public.

Look, if you decide to jump into a thread that someone else started with genuine intent—someone who actually cares about the topic and isn't just treating it like some playground game—then showing up with that "let's just play around" attitude can be incredibly grating. If I'm reading you right, your little invitation to "play" might come off as a provocation, trolling, or straight-up disrespect to the person who opened the discussion. Even if that wasn't your intention, it feels like you're mocking them. 😁 But that’s exactly how things can end up playing out.

If I may be so bold, your responsibility should really be to stop messing around with topics that the thread starter clearly stated were off-limits.

If you keep insisting—despite all the warnings and pleas—that life, the universe, this forum, and everything else is nothing more than your own personal playground, and you just keep playing your games regardless, then you better be ready for the fallout. You have to be prepared for someone to come along, yank that swing out from under you, and watch you hit the ground hard.
Then maybe you shouldn't be starting those PŽK threads just because you feel like they won't "let you play," which is exactly what you're always doing, from what I've noticed.
In this lawless game you’re playing, someone is bound to snatch your toy right out from under you. After all, there aren't any rules to stop them.
It’s honestly pretty pointless trying to hunt for justice around here.

Let me repeat myself: you're out here looking for a game without rules, but you're completely ignoring the fact that a game without rules usually ends in a total loss—and more often than not, that's exactly how it plays out.
Just because there aren't any rules doesn't mean there won't be consequences; if anything, it's actually worse.
Look, you can say whatever you want—complaining about the PZK is just part of the game. It clearly is.
Look, it's you. But let's get one thing straight: you aren't the center of the universe, you aren't the center of the world, and you sure as hell aren't the center of this forum. My bad.

And just like that, everything gets crammed into a single post. 🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:Thanks for looking into this.
👍
I’ve read through everything carefully, and honestly, I don't think I'm in the wrong here. My situation doesn't actually fall under Nicin's rule or how she interprets it.
😲
What Nice is mostly addressing are the beginners who spam multiple quotes within a single new post.

She's talking about people who blast out a series of tiny, one-sentence posts in a row.

In my case, my lack of experience just meant I took one loooong post and split it into, say, three slightly shorter ones.
But I wasn't out there posting ten separate, one-sentence snippets as individual entries.

In fact, Nice actually allows for this "Parsifal-style manipulation" right here:😁

Just look at what she says:

'It isn't an issue if your posts are more specific or aren't strictly tied to one another (which is a bit harder to explain; if a topic is complex and you find yourself touching on various points over more than two sentences), but it becomes unreadable if you start putting every single sentence into its own new post.'

Yeah, you were splitting your posts up for no reason. You used to do that all the time with those lists of ten or more items—writing 1, 2, 3 in one post, then 4, 5 in the next, and 6, 7, 8 in another... just making things way more complicated than they needed to be.
That’s a direct violation of the rules. And look, I'll say it again: if you’ve been a member of this forum for twenty years and you still haven't bothered to adopt the basic standards of being a member here, then I really have to wonder—why haven't you?

And here we go again. Every time the moderator lays down a rule, you just claim it doesn't apply to you, acting like we shouldn't follow the rules or the law like some bunch of drunks. 🤦

I notice it too, and despite all that nonsense, I’m not saying you should be banned from the forum.
Look, your behavior is making it impossible for me to defend you. After hearing the same thing over and over again, I’m starting to wonder if you actually want a solution to this at all.

Do you actually see any issue with how you carry yourself on this forum, or anything that would bother the other members here? Aside from your obvious grudge against Josip Broz Marshall, obviously.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, if you're already looking to get someone permanently banned from the site, I guess it only makes sense to try the ignore button first before taking such a radical step. I mean, if you actually care about what someone is contributing, then you should probably just deal with their specific style—no matter how much it bugs you—rather than demanding they be kicked out entirely.

As for the forum rules, it feels a bit silly to even bring them up when they seem to be applied so inconsistently anyway. Over the last couple of years, and especially in these last few months, I feel like this whole place has gone completely off the rails. There is just endless spamming, trolling, provocation, clone accounts, and rule-breaking happening everywhere you look. It seems like most of the moderators don't really care at all; they might keep an eye on a few big, popular threads, but everything else seems to be totally neglected.

The only threads that stay active are the ones where the same old crowd hangs out together. They almost act like a pack of hyenas, being incredibly territorial whenever someone new tries to join the conversation.

The forum has much bigger issues to deal with than just Parsifal. He isn't vulgar, and he isn't crude. Nor is he such a massive spammer or troll that he deserves to be silenced forever. In my opinion, the attacks against him feel very personal and ideologically driven, which seems pretty obvious to me.

Trolls like you, you mean? I'll give you that.

Your whole "contribution" to this thread can basically be boiled down to suggesting an ignore, claiming Parsifal needs to be "driven out," and finally insisting the forum "has bigger problems."

With all three points, you didn't just miss the mark—you missed the entire stadium.
In the end, you actually managed to get under my skin enough to make me deal with your pathetic presence on this board.

My apologies to Parsifal for getting off track. But yeah, there are definitely users here who need a permanent ban much more than he does, if that makes you feel any better. 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:I don't know if you'll believe me, but I have actually never read the forum rules.
Instead, I learned them through experience. If I hadn't been following the spirit of this place, neither the forum nor I would still be happily married after 20 years.😁

For instance, it took me a whole month to realize that Anderson isn't just a username, but the owner's actual last name.😲

And it’s only now, after two decades, that I've finally seen what the man actually looks like.😲

It's also my first time in 20 years of "marriage" to this forum encountering a rule about not splitting one single thought into three separate posts just for the sake of formatting and readability.🤔

I truly believe that the motivation behind someone's actions is what really matters.

My reasoning for splitting my long posts into two or three parts is simply to make them easier and more pleasant for others to read.

I think that's pretty fair, honestly.🙂

Does it really bother you that much when I do that? 🤔

It does.
What you think makes things more readable actually makes it harder for me as a reader to follow along.

Plus, it's a pain to skip over someone's content when they drop five posts in a row; habit makes you scroll from post to post, not from one username to the next.😁

So, yeah, the answer is yes—it bothers me. Can you change how you do it?

hiddenpuma75 said:You can get caught up in the formalities, but you're missing the heart of the matter.

Personally, I find myself skipping through those massive walls of text where the words just bleed together.

Since I actually enjoy debating things and tend to write quite extensively, I’ve realized that nobody else is going to want to read my posts if they're just one giant, intimidating block of text.😬

So, to keep my proverbially long essays—written with a certain level of flair, mind you—more digestible, I break them down into two or three smaller "packages" so they're much easier on the eyes. 🙂

Instead of just explaining how you're going to follow the rules like everyone else, you just went out of your way to find an excuse for why you shouldn't have to.🤷

Melissa Stewart6 said:So, who do you think would make a good moderator? Would you step up to the plate yourself?

I've been looking over the poll, and it’s pretty obvious that none of you—considering you're all just part of the "inventory"—should be in that position. Honestly, I wouldn't be up for it either.

The subforum finally got a shot at running without a moderator, and we all saw exactly how that played out—it just allowed the guy with the biggest ego to step up and act like the ultimate gatekeeper. Of course, that’s just a metaphor. Honestly, this kind of power trip would probably happen in pretty much any other subforum too.

I don't know who it would be. It’s pretty obvious that nobody would actually want that—spending 85% of their time dealing with Parsifal.

You guys seriously have a massive problem here, and honestly, I’m not even sure if it's fixable. How on earth did they handle this back in ancient Greece? 😁
Since you guys are clearly the smart ones, do some thinking. I'm just a spectator watching this from the sidelines.

When someone who’s been a member of this forum for 20 years carelessly breaks one of the most basic rules—spamming a thread with 10 or 15 posts sent within five minutes instead of just putting everything into one single post—you really have to wonder how many decades it would take for them to grasp something so incredibly simple.
Or maybe it’s just the type of person who thinks the rules simply don't apply to them. Given how much he prides himself on his intellect, I’d say that’s exactly the case.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for banning hiddenpuma75 because, despite all this, he actually is a high-quality member. He’s just gotten a bit too carried away, and since we're talking about philosophy, there isn't anyone here to clip his wings. It's all metaphorical, of course.

Don't think I'm just some random interloper; I read this subforum constantly without posting, but I believe we seriously need to appoint a moderator. As we can see, even the best among us aren't immune to deviant behavior when given the chance—especially when they are given the chance.
The lack of a moderator has clearly created an opening for one member to dominate the space and fire off over 40 shots during a game. If this were LeBron James and he actually hit 20 of those shots, I wouldn't even complain, but 90% of hiddenpuma75's shots are landing straight in the well. As it stands, the playing field isn't level for the rest of the users.

Kevin Jones19 said:I’m asking the mods to step in regarding this constant, malicious twisting of politicians' names when discussing Venezuela (Guaido, Trump, etc.).

I’d also ask the moderators to address the fact that Sam Alvarez isn't just misspelling names, but is actually calling the president Milosevic, which I think is an even bigger violation given that Milosevic was an unconvicted war criminal.

thanks

Benjamin Ruiz60 said:Where did you see it?

I caught it at AMC Theatres a few weeks back. But after sitting through two more of his films recently, I felt compelled to write something regarding his—how should I put it—his T. S. Eliot style of poetics.

The film feels unbalanced, to say the least. Is it a failed romance, whether by design or accident? And honestly, the lead actress is just bafflingly unappealing.

Watching this little T. S. Eliot retrospective, what's always been top-tier in his work remains true here. I've also noticed that his female characters consistently pale in comparison to the men—take that "ten" in Zero Theorem, for example... 🙄 maybe the guy just has a thing for petite, curvy women? 🤷

As is typical with T. S. Eliot, the scenes are incredibly dense; you definitely can't just watch this once, or even twice, and think you've seen it all. 🙂

I’ve gotta say, this "freedom of speech" we’re all so damn proud of? It’s nothing but a complete joke.

Full support for the moderator here.

People who feel the need to post absolute garbage on this forum shouldn't be allowed to express themselves here—especially when they wouldn't have the guts to say any of this crap in their own neighborhoods. 🤷

Freedom of Information Act all the way! It's our only hope.