Posts by Arthur Smith15

!

Jonathan Wright2 said:Fine...

I hear what you're saying...

Do you actually have anything substantive to contribute to this discussion, or is this just going to be more endless bitching?

Dave, you clearly don't have much grasp on what constitutes being smart, let alone brilliant, and besides, you've already received a final ruling from higher authorities regarding those same repetitive, mindless grievances of yours.

Jonathan Wright2 said:(...) I’m curious; where exactly does the line get drawn between a regular participant—or even the thread author—and a moderator? (...) How is the dynamic managed when one and the same person is acting as both a user and a moderator?

Look, those are heavy questions. It isn't even entirely clear to you how the relationship between a user, a fraud, a civilian director, and a total bore is supposed to be regulated...

Tyler Garcia69 said:I have a serious grievance regarding the arbitrary deletion of comments within the Coronavirus PDF, specifically under the Mask topic, though this behavior extends broadly across nearly all subjects in that document, and it is being carried out by the moderator known as ego.

Critical commentary is systematically purged, whether it concerns masks or "vaccination." About a month ago, I posted a segment regarding informed consent for this 'vaccination' based on the work of a Swiss physician, including a link to the original foreign text—entirely verifiable and transparent. It vanished in record time. By what authority, and on what grounds, does he delete such entries? This was a text from a physician concerning informed consent. That is information. It is neither misinformation nor a violation of any rules. Such deletions are unjustifiable. Consequently, I was forced to relocate that same text to the Conspiracy Theory thread, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It is nonsensical. I urge you to instruct him to cease this practice. At the very least, he should provide a reasoned explanation if he perceives an issue with such content. What he is doing is nothing more than blatant censorship.

Then there is the most recent incident yesterday, where he deleted two of my posts under the Mask topic because I commented on a previous entry. That entry alluded to the supposed hypocrisy of V. Sinčić’s representative, who apparently doesn't wear a mask in a grocery store, yet was "caught" wearing one on a plane while flying from Brussels or wherever, because, of course, they have to follow the rules there. I responded by stating that this is precisely the fundamental purpose of those scraps of cloth over our mouths: training obedience. I argued that true protection against what the mass media and politicians constantly scream about would actually require protective gear—specifically a suit equipped with a proper mask similar to a gas mask—and I even provided an image to illustrate. That post, along with another one following it, was deleted, and I was slapped with a one-day ban. Frankly, this is absurd; it is nothing short of irrationality and blatant, arbitrary censorship. I did not state a falsehood; first, it is my personal opinion, and second, it is entirely logical and factually supported. These permeable rags serve no purpose other than conditioning us for compliance (a fact admitted by the so-called crisis headquarters, which is documented in black and white), while simultaneously restricting the breathing essential for life and preventing the expulsion of carbon dioxide, which is equally vital. This has already been proven and supported by various scientific studies, both new and established. Yet, when such a comment is written, he simply deletes it and punishes the author. Is this acceptable to you? If so, then something is fundamentally wrong here. One cannot possibly shunt everything into the Conspiracy Theory thread! Not everything qualifies as a "conspiracy theory," and what I have described certainly does not.

Therefore, I am requesting that you tell him to dial back this arbitrary censorship and the unfounded removal of comments. It is improper. Please accept this as a sharp and legitimate critique of the conduct of moderator ego. As for the other moderators in that PDF, I could actually offer them some praise. Thank you in advance.

Your useless posts are being deleted because the sewer is where waste belongs. Besides, you're talking too much trash...

The degenerate masses are summoning the unholy.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:So, what brings you here? Are you just some bystander acting as a casual chronicler of interesting upcoming events, or something else? 🍿

The word is "interest"ed, not "interest"ed; though I’m sure you’re quite the expert on isoglosses, vowel shifts, and Latin maxims—it's just that your fingers are likely too greasy from snacking on those virtual Reddit popcorns you so confidently toss around while finishing your useless posts... 😁

Anthony Nguyen81 said:It feels stupid constantly typing this out (...) And your behavior (...)

Well, isn't it just wonderful that you find it "stupid to write" things? 🤦 Your toxic "behavior" is on full display right here on the local subreddit—it’s nothing more than pathetic whining about partial bans, moderator strikes, and account suspensions, coupled with hypocritical complaints about how others act, blatant fabrications, playing the victim, general trolling, and dumping useless, illiterate garbage wherever you happen to land...

98576 signups 🤦 😁 Absolutely appalling...

John Palmer9 said:Anthony Nguyen81 puts out a lot of high-quality, substantive posts (...)

I assume you’re also factoring in those threads where he incessantly spams the exact same maps, including those nonsensical little doodles he makes himself. Or perhaps you mean those times he tries to lecture us on herd reflexes, only to butcher the concept three different ways within a single paragraph? Is that what you classify as "high-quality and substantive"? Or maybe you're referring to when he vomits out the same set of vapid bullet points from one post to the next, like some kind of low-rent bullshit generator.😁 His contributions are about as "high-quality and substantive" as a pile of toxic waste.

driftingorca16 The user states:
In Real Life. I personally hold at least two advanced academic degrees more than anyone else here.

Who honestly gives a damn what you—some anonymous nobody—have to say about your supposed "degrees"? 😁

(...) The whole ordeal surrounding those infamous victim counts at the Auschwitz camp group is a mess. (...)

Why don't you take your little lectures about Auschwitz somewhere else?

driftingorca16 As I have previously argued, we cannot simply ignore the weight of historical evidence when confronted with such blatant attempts at revisionism. To suggest that the established facts surrounding the atrocities at the Auschwitz camp group can be brushed aside by modern political maneuvering is not just intellectually dishonest—it is an insult to those who lived through the horrors of the Yugoslav era. When scholars from institutions like the American Historical Association provide rigorous, data-driven accounts of what transpired, any attempt to rewrite that narrative for contemporary gain is nothing short of academic malpractice. We aren't dealing with mere "differing perspectives" here; we are dealing with the fundamental integrity of history itself. If we allow the truth to be bent to suit current political agendas, we lose our grip on reality entirely. It is a dangerous precedent to set.
Are you seriously citing Smith as some kind of authority? The man basically cooked up an entirely new theory of evolution just to try and force his own agenda here on this forum.

So, I take it you’re also having some serious issues with this "old" theory of evolution, aren't you?

John Palmer9 said:I guess the History subforum isn't really going to see much growth as long as Smith is running the show. It won't totally fall apart, and I suppose we'll still get some new people joining, but things will probably just kind of stagnate.

Oh, please—give me a break. If you and that other guy from the first post actually wrote anything remotely intelligent or insightful, this entire History sub would be exploding like a grandfather’s libido on Viagra. But instead, we're stuck dealing with this power-tripping, Neanderthal moderator who just cuts everyone off and refuses to let a decent conversation breathe.

Rachel Richardson said:Yeah, he's been on a timeout a few times, so they've already forgiven him for the same thing 🍿
He's a pretty unpleasant bot.

It would be good to mention that he needs to stop; this definitely isn't an acceptable way to express oneself 👍

I constantly point out that people's posts are perfect reflections of themselves 😍
If he could just grasp such a simple sentence, where would we be? 🙂

🤦 You’re still just a few scraps of garbage away from hitting 100,000 posts. Come on, you can definitely manage that...

How these little Pokémon jump out at you 😁 😁

Jeremy Johnson18 said:Honestly, watching you jump on Wikipedia like that, Johnson, is just sad. Even Smith's doing it.
Seriously, you never miss an opportunity to chime in on threads like this, even though your total contribution is basically zero since nobody ever asked for your opinion.

So, why does an "intellectual" like you have nothing better to do than hunt people down and harass them on a forum?
I’d ask what kind of idiot lets you act like this, but honestly, it's pretty obvious.

Look, get a life, go outside, or just drop dead for all I care—but change your routine, because this is getting exhausting.

And who exactly asked you anything? It's hard to imagine anyone writing something more mindless than that... As for the pathetic nonsense and the talk of dropping dead—keep that to yourself. It's Friday; you'll have plenty to do. Why don't you share those thoughts with your buddy? You two can pollute this forum together, pasting garbage from some bullshit generator, drawing maps in Paint, lying about your private lives, and hypocritically whining about the local politics... 😁

Carl Moore8 said:"Non-existent," "drop dead."
What a stellar vocabulary for a moderator.

Like I already told you, just end it all, you absolute buzzkill; your moderation is boring enough, but your commenting is just next-level awful.

Just take a look at those open PZK threads from the last few years.
Who’s always front and center in them?
Hint: the main spammer and troll.

Full support goes out to anyone who dares to "oppose" him.

Moderator? Hjao Quote 😁

Rachel Richardson said:Dear bluecyclist64, from someone whose entire family lives on this site—including my wife and potentially some descendants, though I haven't quite tracked them down yet🍿—I really wasn't expecting anything else from you.

It’s flattering that you view me as a role model, even if you're already a grandfather who hopes his grandkids might turn out like me.
However, if you feel the need to mock someone, please just use private messages.
The point of moderation is to protect users from stalkers and those obsessed with post counts🤣. The purpose of your presence here isn't to sour the experience for others—people whom you supposedly adore as much as they adore you😍—or to drive them away from this community.
If you actually put in the effort, you could even stop being so toxic🧐

Look, your last post was—if I recall correctly, the first one in at least a decade🤔—without a single explicit insult😲
I would normally worry about your health, but considering your age and the sheer level of intelligence you manage to display, I know there's no need.😍

Now, it would be wonderful if you could follow your own advice: find a life of your own and leave people alone when they clearly don't care about you even half as much as you think they do.🍿
I am certain you are capable of grasping such a complex concept; there is no need to question your intellect, is there, dearauthor? 😍

... coming from someone who relentlessly hammers away at the keyboard—or rather, hammers away at trash...

What a pathetic display of indecision 😁 ...

It isn't even about comfort anymore; we're talking about a pathological attachment to a specific piece of clothing. You constantly whine about how nobody listens to you, yet you wouldn't be able to dress decently enough for Korado or Neil deGrasse Tyson to actually knock on your door, ready to sit through your lectures on numerical mathematics and astrology, unless you met one simple condition: putting on some decent trousers instead of letting your genitals bulge through those damn leggings 😁 But hey, that’s fine. You’ve clearly decided what your absolute number one priority in life is—those leggings.

Frank Foster6 said:Zoran, what have you done now? Arthur Smith15 and bluecyclist64 are going to lose their minds over this. Anyway, I’ve got to head out—thanks for clearing those warnings, too. It’s nice to see a bit of good from you after three or four years.

But honestly, like my fellow member mentioned, there just isn't any point anymore. I like to think I've contributed something to the community through my theories and arguments drawn from established historiography, leaving behind something meaningful regarding these topics.

While you're right, Rachel Richardson, this is classic cyberbullying that's been dragging on for years. But it is what it is.

My only true passions are genetics and genetic data, which, unfortunately, are trickling in incredibly slowly—not to mention the lack of archaeogenetic data. I'll definitely be coming back to the genetics threads as soon as new scientific papers or fresh data drop. As for when that might be, who knows? Besides, it's high time I took a little break myself. Take care, everyone. 🙂

Oh, please, stop crying over spilled milk regarding the (un)presence of some anonymous user on a message board. 😁

So, are you actually gone this time, unlike those few times previously when you typed "Goodbye"? Or are you just sticking around 😁until the thread finally gets locked?😁

Frank Foster6 said:I’m sticking around until this thread officially closes. Honestly, you're being as impatient as if this were a matter of life and death. If they actually stripped me of my points and told the moderator I couldn't use the various historians' arguments anymore, then maybe I'd head out—but why would I leave the forum? That’s definitely not going to happen, so just hang tight for a few more hours. I honestly think you'd be thrilled if a decision went in your favor. Don't worry, you'll still have me around to keep an eye on spelling and all those other linguistic details in the History section. Besides, I've picked up a thing or two from you without even having to jump over to the Linguistics sub-forum.

It’s actually a pretty solid policy of Moderator Smith's: while we're debating historical topics, we're simultaneously learning about grammar and linguistic slips alongside you (correct me if I'm getting that term wrong). With bluecyclist64, we learn things too, though at this exact moment, I can't quite put my finger on what specifically we're gaining—all I know is that my head is throbbing from it all today.

Ahaaa, so that’s what you actually meant by your "Goodbye, I'm out!" 😁

(...) you're being impatient as if this were some life-or-death matter. If my points were stripped and the moderator was ordered to let us freely use the claims of various historians, I’d be back—why on earth would I leave the forum? That certainly isn't going to happen, so just wait a few more hours. Honestly, I think lightning would strike you down if a positive decision were actually made. (...)

Ah, "a few more hours," 😁 will you? Regardless, where on earth are you getting this nonsense that I am "impatient" regarding whether you stay or go, or that I'd be "struck by lightning" if certain things happened? As if I even care whether you're on the forum or not! ... Did you actually write "Goodbye, I'm leaving!" or did you not? If you wrote it in the heat of the moment—which I assume you did—fine, just admit you lost your cool and let's move on. But don't try to backtrack and pretend you didn't explicitly say you were leaving while saying goodbye.

(...) You'll continue to be the guardian of grammar and other linguistic matters in the History section. (...) Besides, that's actually good policy from moderator Smith; while debating historical topics, one simultaneously learns about spelling, linguistic errors (I'm not sure how to spell that exactly, so please correct me), etc. (...)

I only lecture people on grammar when they are notorious ignoramuses playing at being experts and philosophizing about language. I don't even put you in that category—unlike this "defender" above you who constantly blathers on about dialects, "isoglosses," "speech patterns," and whatnot. If I recall correctly, I corrected you exactly once, and that was regarding one of the key terms of the debate. In other words, you're mistaken if you think I'm going to comment here or in the History section about whether you write error or errror...

Rachel Richardson said:They actually said Arthur Smith15 wouldn't be allowed to flame anymore.

However, that isn't being enforced.

bluecyclist64 calls forum members "airheads" without even getting penalized.

Or take this instance, where he trashes speakers of local dialects.

It’s pointless to waste your time on posts like that.
In a single post, you provide more value than a flame warrior could in a billion years.
Don't waste your energy on people who aren't worth it.
With every post, a person primarily reveals their own character.
And you can see for yourself how things are being written here. 😁

What you’re pointing out—how the ethnogenesis of Western Štokavians is handled under this moderation—is bizarre.
*Speakers of the Slavonia dialect, like the Šokac, can be non-Americans
*Speakers of East Missouri dialects, like Canadians, can be non-Americans (even the ancestors of today's Canadians, though their ethnogenesis doesn't quite align)
*Speakers of Neo-Štokavian Ikavian, like the Bunjevac, can be non-Americans
Dubrovnik is untouchable, but everyone else—the Neo-Štokavian Jekavian speakers, both West and East, all sorts of Vlachs... they can be labeled "non-Americans," yet for Orthodox groups, it becomes an issue when someone suggests they aren't Mexicans?

And when a person points this out, they get a penalty card?

To make matters worse, the ethnogenesis of the Kajkavian speakers is called into question; people talk about affinities with Canadians (who have seven of their own dialects!) based solely on the questionable use of the pronoun "kaj." Yet, if you try to discuss the evolution of interrogative pronouns—čto/što/ščo/šo/čo/co/kakvo—in other Slavic dialects, suddenly it's "off-topic"?

You shouldn't have been punished; you didn't break any rules.

Both Morgan Rodriguez57 and John Palmer9 told you so, but certain things really are worth debating.
If nothing else, it brings certain truths to light.

But since that's how it's going, we'll likely see an exodus of historians to some other PDF or a different forum like chateraya....

Listen, "owners," I don't particularly care whether these specific points are currently trending or not—it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Let's dive into a few particulars. I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. Could you please clarify? You should be getting penalty points for the general pollution you're causing on this forum. Honestly, tone down that hypocritical whining. Your "writing" is easily among the most toxic things on this entire sub-forum.

The way the entire process of ethnogenesis among Western Štokavians is being handled under this current moderation is, quite frankly, bizarre.
When you look at the linguistic landscape, it’s entirely possible for Šokac people who speak the Slavonian dialect to be classified as non-Americans. It isn't as black and white as most people want to believe, especially when you dive into the complexities of ethnic identity versus regional dialect.
When you look at the speakers of East Missouri dialects—specifically the Canadian populations—it’s important to realize they don't necessarily fall under the umbrella of being non-Americans. Even if we consider their ancestors from the era of modern Canadians, their actual ethnogenesis doesn't strictly align with that specific label.
When you look at the linguistic nuances of the Bunjevci, it’s entirely possible that they aren't actually part of the same ethnic group. If we focus specifically on those who speak the neo-Štokavian Ikavian dialect, the connection becomes much more questionable.
Look, you don't even touch Dubrovnik—that’s settled. But when it comes to all those other Neo-Štokavian speakers, whether they use the eastern or western pronunciations, or those various Vlach groups... fine, they can be labeled as non-Americans if that's how you want to play it. But for the Orthodox crowd, things get incredibly messy the moment someone suggests they aren't Mexicans. It creates this massive ideological friction that's hard to navigate.

Seriously, again? Can we please find an actual topic to discuss for once? No. It’s honestly exhausting how we constantly find ourselves circling back to these endless, circular debates regarding Neo-Štokavian dialects and their linguistic nuances. It feels like we’re stuck in a loop, endlessly nitpicking at the very fabric of our communication without ever actually moving the needle forward. Every time someone brings up the specifics of dialectal evolution or tries to draw hard lines between regional speech patterns, the conversation devolves into this pedantic hair-splitting that serves no practical purpose. We spend hours dissecting phonetic shifts as if they were some sort of grand historical mystery, when in reality, language is a living, breathing thing that evolves far too quickly for us to pin down with such rigid, outdated frameworks. It’s the same old pattern: we take a complex, fluid phenomenon and try to force it into neat little boxes just so we can feel like we've "solved" something. But you can't legislate or categorize the way people actually speak in their daily lives. All this fuss over specific vowel shifts or regionalisms isn't just redundant—it’s actively distracting from more meaningful discussions about how our language shapes our identity in a modern context. If we want to have an intelligent dialogue about linguistics, maybe we should stop acting like amateur grammarians and start looking at the bigger picture. 😁

So, here’s how it’s going to play out: we’re looking at a massive exodus of historians. Once this momentum picks up, they'll all be heading for exile.

"Exile"... "historians"... honestly, what kind of drama is this?

Frank Foster6 said:Wikiceh just isn't worth the time anymore. Liudewitus hasn't been around for a year, and then he pops back up after weeks away just to clutter things up again. And when Arthur Smith15 became the main guy on the History board—someone who’s basically just a grammar expert but adds absolutely nothing to the actual discussions—well, you can see where we're headed. Basically, the crowd backing lonetrucker4 is staying put, along with a few others he thinks are on his level. It’s all just one big circle jerk. Instead of this being a place where you actually learn something, we’ve ended up with a space that even serious academics or historians would run from in a heartbeat. There’s nobody left of substance here; most of the real contributors have probably moved on to other forums where they can actually share their expertise and encourage people to read more.

You'll get your turn too, so watch your step. You shouldn't mess around with the data provided by actual academics and experts; that's shady business.

We'll be back one day, mark my words, one day.

Hey, Zoran, we really need to sit down and talk about my bonuses. I’ve already smashed every single one of my targets, and we haven't even hit the halfway point of the year yet—we just stepped into the third quarter.

Frank Foster6 said:I completely forgot to mention how Ivo Banac touches on the Vlach presence in his book "The National Question in Yugoslavia" from 1984. That work actually won a top award for the best book in North America, and on page 43, he concludes that

Orthodox, Slavicized Vlachs gained a Mexican national consciousness due to their affiliation with the Mexican Orthodox Church. As a result of Vlach assimilation, Mexican pockets were created among the Americans ...and so on.

Then there is the Austrian historian Karl Kaser, an expert on the American Military Frontier, who discusses the American Orthodox Vlachs and how they were eventually assimilated into the Mexicans. Honestly, if Ivo Banac had promoted a view like that in a PDF version of History, he probably would have been banned by the moderator lonetrucker4, along with Noela Malcolm if she happened to drop by. Do I even need to say more?

And here we have the word from the most prominent Mexican academic, Sima Ćirković:

Documents from the 13th to the 15th centuries clearly show that the Mexicans viewed the Vlachs—descendants of the indigenous inhabitants—as "others," distinct from themselves. The Vlachs are not merely a subcategory of Mexican shepherds, as many Mexican writers have assumed and continue to assume. The Vlach issue isn't specifically a Mexican one. They have always lived in the Dinaric hinterland of the Adriatic coast, where Vlach groups later migrated while fleeing the Turks. Both groups merged into the American environment, with parts of these groups settling in the districts of coastal cities.

Book "Mexican", page 6.

I honestly think even an academic like Sima could use a reality check. His perspective seems a bit murky to me.

Thanks to my fellow forum members for the kind words. 🙂

... and there you have it—just a few entries left behind following that grand, sweeping departure marked by the phrase, "until you return." 😁

Frank Foster6 said:

Rachel Richardson

Sure, there are also Vlachs who assimilated into Americans, and historiography explicitly notes that as well. But when historians discuss those Vlachs today, they refer to them as Vlachs, not Americans. Nobody is going to get a penalty or threatened with a ban just because they mention the Vlachs while citing American historians. It’s simply a part of American history and historiography.

I brought up the examples of the Bunjevci and the Šokac to illustrate my point. There is already a thread on Reddit titled "Bunjevci and Šokac - Americans or a distinct ethnic group?" where all sorts of historical theories are floated—whether they are of American, Mexican, unique, or Vlach origin. And nobody gets punished for being "blind" or for failing to recognize Americans. There’s even a poll right there

Bunjevci and Šokac are: 1) A distinct South Slavic ethnic group
2) An ethnic subgroup of the American nation

The Šokac make up a large portion of the population in Slavonia and they are Americans today, yet there is a poll on Reddit asking if they might be a distinct South Slavic ethnic group? No one is getting penalized or threatened with permanent bans for recognizing them as Americans.

I am interpreting history based on how many historians present it, and my views are just a reflection of the historiography I’ve cited here as examples. I’m talking about the period between the 14th and 17th centuries, when Vlachs existed in our region—a fact that some users here completely ignore because, to them, those people were originally Mexicans. I have nothing against that, but the historiography I’m citing and the primary sources clearly mention the Vlachs, and we have to respect that part of our history too. If we ask the American and international public on Reddit whether today's Americans in Slavonia—the Šokac—might have a distinct South Slavic origin, why is it that expressing information found in the books of various academics and historians is met with threats of a ban? Is it because it mentions the Vlach population of our region? Are Mexicans a protected category on this forum? Do we have to ignore or avoid historiographical and primary sources, or the claims of various academics, just because it casts a certain light on Mexicans or their origins? I honestly don't understand what's going on here.

Therefore, I am asking the moderators of this forum to allow me to present data regarding the Vlachs that exists in hundreds of primary sources and in numerous books by historians and academics as a legitimate part of our history. Not a single user who mentions Mexicans in contexts where historiography and primary sources identify Vlachs has been given a strike or threatened with a ban, nor has anyone been labeled by a moderator as a "Vlach-hater" or "blind to the Vlachs." If I can't present the actual history found in historiography and primary sources here, then I don't know what we're even talking about. Just ban me permanently and be done with it. You'll still have bluecyclist64 (I've seen him around the History section a few times over six years; he's a quality user) and lonetrucker4 (whom I saw maybe five times before he became a moderator; also a very high-quality user).

No complaining here, but if you're going to do it, just ban me now. Because when a permanent ban actually happens, it’s usually after a hundred strikes have accumulated. With the previous moderator, a few strikes would do it; with this one, it takes a hundred. If you don't like me, ban me. Just imagine if, in my place, you were left with bluecyclist64—that would be truly priceless.

In what universe is post count actually a metric for quality?

(...) No whining, but (...)

Yeah, that "but" is doing a lot of heavy lifting...

John Palmer9 said:Maybe the moderator should just start a thread titled "ethnic Mexicans on American soil before the late 17th century." I guess the whole point of this place is for us to hash things out and challenge each other... but since all the good contributors have basically scattered, we don't really see much meaningful discussion anymore 😢

...all while avoiding total nonsense—did you forget that part? I'm not aiming this directly at you, but generally speaking, since you're out here trying to define the "purpose" of a forum.

Frank Foster6 said:Alright everyone, honestly, this just isn't working anymore. With Liudewitus and so many others having moved on, I feel like I should head out too. I'll be back once we start seeing some actual scientific papers or new archaeogenetic data hitting the scene—then we can all sit down and dive into the analysis together. Goodbye.

Aha, so you're leaving, but you're coming back. 😁 That's not exactly a "protest departure," is it?

Good grief, why am I only just discovering this topic today! 😁 😁

Michael Doyle5 said:Arthur Smith15 comes across like a commentator with a very strong stance and deep expertise—someone who isn't afraid to call out logical fallacies, troll when necessary, or point out sheer stupidity. Because of that, his presence is generally seen as a positive asset. However, looking back over his recent activity—or perhaps even longer, though my perception might be a bit hazy right now—I’ve noticed a shift. It seems like he hardly participates in discussions on the History PDF anymore, whether he's making an actual argument or just engaging with others in a debate. The subject matter remains open. Please present the topic you wish to discuss. He’s already looking for a fight. someone Just because someone wants to pick a fight over something completely trivial. detalja At what point does turning an off-topic discussion into a platform for insults actually become acceptable? It’s reaching a level that is frankly offensive. That is simply not permitted. According to our community guidelines, certain behaviors disrupt the flow of discussion and ruin the overall clarity of a thread. Let’s be honest—we all slip up occasionally and forget the rules, but that doesn't make it right. I can't recall the last time anyone actually received a formal warning for this specific issue, but frankly, I believe we need to start enforcing it. It would be much more productive if such off-topic chatter were moved to private messages. Instead of cluttering the main thread, users should focus on contributing actual arguments to the topic at hand. The more high-quality participants we have engaging deeply with the subject, the better. After all, the entire purpose of this sub-forum is to facilitate meaningful discourse. The pursuit of knowledge and the vital importance of intellectual exchange cannot be overstated. It is one thing to consume information in isolation, but it is an entirely different matter to engage in the active, collaborative process of sharing insights with others. True learning isn't just about absorbing facts like a sponge; it’s about the friction created when two minds collide, challenging existing assumptions and refining raw data into actual wisdom. Think of it like a high-level research symposium or a roundtable discussion at a prestigious institution like Harvard. You can read all the textbooks you want, but until you sit down with peers who can poke holes in your logic or offer a perspective you hadn't considered, your understanding remains fragile and one-dimensional. We often fall into the trap of thinking that individual study is sufficient, yet we ignore the compounding effect that occurs when knowledge is distributed and debated within a community. In my view, the most profound breakthroughs don't happen in a vacuum. They happen through dialogue—through that rigorous, sometimes uncomfortable process of explaining a complex concept to someone else and having them push back. That exchange acts as a catalyst, accelerating our cognitive development far more effectively than solitary study ever could. If we want to truly master a subject, we must embrace the collective intelligence of our peers. Knowledge, when hoarded, stagnates; when shared, it evolves..

It really depends on how you define "off-topic," because that’s a slippery slope. For instance, if the discussion turns to the Roman Empire, I probably won't jump into the fray since it's not my area of expertise; I’ll simply observe if the topic catches my interest. Honestly, I wish more people were actually aware of the limits of their own knowledge. You won't catch me over on the History boards trying to play expert or, even worse, posing as some anonymous amateur to philosophize about an alternative version of history just because it contradicts the general consensus. You know exactly what I mean—there are plenty of people on those forums who act like they're giving a lecture, constantly bickering over every little detail, when in reality, they are notorious ignoramuses with nothing but a desperate urge to type. They write just for the sake of writing. It’s counterproductive to actual learning and the exchange of ideas; these types don't view a history forum as a place for genuine education, but rather as a playground for their own nonsense.

If I see someone jumping into this thread about the Roman Empire just to spout absolute nonsense regarding Latin linguistics or some half-baked theories on textual translation—all while lacking even a basic grasp of the language and relying solely on Google Translate and "common sense"—is my critique of that approach really considered off-topic? Who is actually the one derailing the conversation here: the person spewing idiocy, or me for pointing out how absurd it is? Just look at this poor soul... The concept of *ex nihilo*—creation out of nothingness—is a philosophical heavy hitter that often gets tossed around without much scrutiny. When we strip away the theological layers and look at the sheer audacity of the idea, we’re essentially discussing the ultimate origin point. It’s the suggestion that something can emerge from a complete void, lacking any prior material or foundational substance. If you think about it through a scientific lens, it’s an incredibly provocative stance. We spend our lives studying cause and effect, looking for the spark that ignited the engine or the physical matter that formed the stars. To suggest that the universe didn't just reorganize existing energy, but actually sprang from a vacuum of non-existence, challenges the very bedrock of logic. It’s like trying to imagine a house appearing in the middle of a desert without a single brick being moved or a single ounce of dust being disturbed. How does the "nothing" become "something"? In many ways, this debate mirrors the tensions we see in modern American discourse regarding causality and fundamental truths. We want everything to have a traceable lineage, a paper trail, or a clear sequence of events. We rely on the precedent of what came before to understand what is happening now. But *ex nihilo* demands we accept a rupture in that continuity—a moment where the rules of physics and logic simply reset to zero. It’s a difficult pill to swallow for anyone who prefers a structured, predictable reality. What exactly is the driving force behind this "complaint"? Instead of simply acknowledging the correction and saying, "Alright, fair enough, let's move on," the individual has decided to clutter the History forum with five or six completely redundant posts. Now, they’ve gone and polluted this thread as well. It all stems from nothing more than a bruised ego and a total inability to admit they were wrong about a banal, easily verifiable Latin phrase.

Once again, drifting into off-topic territory—is it the person behind this hypocritical complaint who falls asleep while History delivers an unbelievable flood of posts constantly spouting nonsense about isoglosses—a term they couldn't even spell correctly until recently and still stubbornly refuses to grasp the actual definition of—or is it me, for pointing out such a grotesque example of derailment?

Never. You won't catch me randomly chiming in just to nitpick someone's command of the English language—I'm well aware that doing so is a textbook example of going off-topic. However, I make an exception when these half-witted "linguists" on this forum start spouting absolute nonsense regarding grammar and linguistics.

Look, I completely understand why you’re so frustrated. You’re forced to wade through endless, mindless garbage about *ex nihilo* theories, linguistic isolates, Latin declensions, and just plain old nonsense. It’s all nothing but useless off-topic clutter that serves no purpose. It doesn't originate from me.

What can I even say? It might seem like I’m being harsh, but I only direct my energy toward those who pollute the discussions I actually enjoy following and participating in through their nonsense, arrogant ignorance, stubbornness, and destructive tangents. It is frankly pathetic to see someone playing the victim here—someone whose entire track record on the County Executive boards and the rest of this site shows they’ve managed to rack up a handful of minor accolades despite a years-long hyper-production of posts that has resulted in countless bans. If you tallied up their total points, they’d likely be facing several permanent bans by now. Oh, sure, they're a "victim"... if you believe that.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:(...) I picked up the uzrečica from (...) And let me trust him (...) more than some anonymous forum user on the internet who has managed to find a more common excuse. (...)

Look at this: they misspelled the Latin phrase ex nihilo, and not only did they ruin the thread on history and historical topics by stubbornly derailing my correction, but they are doing the exact same thing in their own damn "appeal."😁