Posts by Arthur Smith15

neonstag7 said:I’ve officially checked out of this whole history scene. I showed up, dropped a few posts, got banned almost as many times as I actually wrote anything, and just said bye-bye.

P.S. what on earth is that supposed to mean, "who me"?

Jessica Morris6 said:Looking at your profile, there isn't a single one of Zoran's strikes listed.

lonetrucker4 said:Just checking the ban count neonstag7 racked up in that History PDF.

Hmm… zero. 🤔All those bans were actually over in Politics.

Lol 😁 the Politics section is king.

neonstag7 said:"A total disaster." You seriously have this weird obsession with using these heavy-handed, emotional outbursts, don't you? I read somewhere that people do that when they're trying to make up for a total lack of actual intelligence.

"Intellectual substance"... Are you feeling alright? 😁

neonstag7 said:Just a little excerpt from a post. Has anyone actually diagnosed this specific kind of Internet rage in literature yet, because this right here is a textbook example.

Excerpt 😁 😁 Come on, give us more of those excerpts. They’re actually pretty great.

neonstag7 said:I’ve officially checked out of this whole history scene. I showed up, dropped a few posts, got banned almost as many times as I actually wrote anything, and just said bye-bye.

P.S. what on earth is that supposed to mean, "who me"?

So, basically, you get banned just for signing up, huh? I'm sure your contributions were incredibly constructive, because clearly, the History section would be a total wasteland without your brilliant input.😁

Rachel Richardson said:My issue isn't the vulgarity itself—it's the entire post.
What did that post actually contribute to the discussion?
Where is the value in it?

And this notion that we should only penalize the person who started it...
Just look at what Arthur Smith15 is doing.
Why haven't his posts been penalized, or even removed?

I have no desire to descend to that level of communication, but such behavior falls far below any standard rules.

And that's fine.
That's exactly why I opened this thread.

The point isn't to strip someone of their ability to write; it's simply to point out an obvious rule violation.
I hope they stop behaving this way so that further sanctions won't be necessary.

No justification for a war crime is ever acceptable.
The nationality or ideology of the person doing it is completely irrelevant.

An apology from that user would be appropriate.

Who am I arguing with?

I have my own opinions and stances, which I defend with arguments.
That is what a discussion is...
If I am wrong about something, it will be addressed through debate—that is the very purpose of a discussion.

You don't think like I do; that's fine. However, that doesn't mean I am biased.

Is that a standard you apply to yourself as well?😁

The whole point of a discussion is to compare perspectives and fill in the gaps in our knowledge.
Ideology is irrelevant here; actual knowledge is what matters.
Just look at the Zagorian post from today and Nancy Klein's quote regarding the Potisj Quote.🙏

It wouldn't be difficult to facilitate a public debate or a poll.
If there are issues—and there obviously are—it's in everyone's interest to resolve them.

He certainly remembers how to run a poll.

We all want better moderation...

So, what is there to conclude about Arthur Smith15's contribution to this discussion?
Why is this kind of language even tolerated?

A public poll is an excellent idea. 👍

Well, that's fine too.

But then again—rules have to apply to everyone equally.

It’s simply not right—Arthur Smith15 should be able to barge into a discussion, insult everyone present, and then face absolutely zero consequences for it.

That would be a total disaster—and honestly, quite a few people have already gone down that road. :/

Rachel Richardson said:👍

The core issue really comes down to consistency and transparency.
Take the way Arthur Smith15 was targeted—that's a perfect example.
A user can violate the rules, insult you, and insult me, yet somehow it's deemed "not controversial"?

If the rules exist, they need to apply to everyone equally.

Rachel Richardson said:Actually, Arthur Smith15 perfectly illustrates the issue with Zoran's perspective.

He isn't a moderator here—so he lacks the authority to act—but invoking the Dunning-Kruger effect is a direct insult.
Sure, there’s a chance he simply doesn't grasp the context, but if that's the case, he shouldn't be defending a user who is clearly in violation.
I can't help but wonder how things would play out if anyone else had insulted Dante like that.

The thing is, this user acts this way because he knows he can get away with it. I've asked him a million times to stop jumping down my throat, and I've reported his posts—but what actually happens?
A user who repeatedly breaks the rules ends up being shielded by the moderators.
Instead of receiving a correction or a condemnation of something so obvious.
And really, it shouldn't be an issue at all.

Oh, please... Save those crocodile tears for someone who actually gives a damn. 😁 You are sitting there acting incredibly hypocritical, playing the victim when you are quite literally the one polluting this entire History subforum with an endless stream of garbage, stupidity, ignorance, nonsense, trolling, thread-hijacking, and pure pseudoscience. Let’s be honest: your contributions to the History section are almost entirely useless junk. It is just a repetitive loop of the same tired entries and maps—the kind of mindless bullshit a generic internet generator would churn out—which you incessantly recycle from one post to the next and one thread to another without any regard for substance or context. I have seen your "grand" forum legacy here on PŽK—it's nothing more than a cycle of point-grubbing, bans, whining, trolling, hijacking threads, filing complaints, and playing favorites. You should be genuinely ashamed of this pathetic performance, constantly bemoaning your situation, appealing to higher authorities, and putting on this ridiculous act like you're being persecuted. 🤦

Regarding this absolute nonsense about clones; you should consider yourselves lucky that I'm not lonetrucker4, because if I were, both you and the pollster would have been staring at history through a filtered lens a long time ago.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, Al, chill out! Seriously, I just checked in with Bill and he said it's totally fine to admit we have weekly video calls with him, Elona, George, and Joža, as long as we don't blow the cover on our other associates in the United Deep State. ☕

Yes master! 😁

Jonathan Wright2 said:Since I got called out in the post, I guess I have to respond, my dear colleague.

Neither you nor our friend bluecyclist64 made it onto the poll.
I didn't think it was necessary to include you two since you're such close ideological allies of lonettrucker4.

Please, don't take it personally.
As for the poll itself:
The request was sent out to over 160 different users on this forum.
We ended up getting responses from 120 people.
Here is how the numbers currently stack up:

84—against lonettrucker4
18—neutral or undecided
8—irrelevant/not interested
10—for lonettrucker4

It wasn't some "secret" operation; I just didn't expect things to blow up this much.
I kept it quiet for a bit.
I started this whole thing because I felt like lonettrucker4 was systematically targeting me.
And honestly, the results proved I wasn't alone in feeling that way.

If you want to be part of the poll, you're more than welcome. I'm not trying to play favorites here. It's just that I didn't see the point in dragging you guys into it.
You and bluecyclist64 openly support lonettrucker4, which is totally your right.

Initially... the poll spread like wildfire among those who had been sanctioned or were dealing with sanctions.
Besides...
rustydrifter10 can go ahead and ask the users over in the History PDF thread how they interpret the situation.

This isn't about being brave or anything—it's just that I already know what your answer would be.
Sometimes I seriously wonder if you and lonettrucker4 are actually the same person...

Your attempts at politeness are utterly futile—you are a proven liar and a fraud. You have zero respect for anyone, because creatively twisting quotes is the ultimate sign of disrespect toward those unfortunate enough to stumble upon your posts. So, stop playing the part.

(...) because you are ideological accomplices to lonetrucker4. (...)

You liar, I am no one's "accomplice," and frankly, aren't you ashamed to invent such blatant lies?

(...) The poll isn't a secret, I just didn't expect things to escalate this far.
I kept it confidential.
It was launched because I felt like I was being systematically targeted by lonetrucker4. (...)

No, what's actually happening is that you systematically falsify quotes and spout nonsense, which is why you constantly get called out. Not only do you lack the basic decency to retreat after being caught red-handed multiple times, but you actually go on the offensive and play the victim. 🤦 You aren't a victim; you're a liar and a fraud.

(...) (...) And the poll proved to me that I'm not alone. (...)

Ha! 😁 First off, you're trying to pass off some pathetic half-measure as an actual poll. Second, yeah—you certainly aren't alone when it comes to being in the company of ignoramuses, frauds, revisionists, and fans of Little Floramya.

(...) This isn't about bravery; it's just that I already know how you'll respond. (...)

Of course it isn't. You're nothing but a liar and a coward.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Listen, lady... You got notified that you were part of the survey.
And you also got the list of everyone involved, just for the sake of transparency.
Are you seriously implying I manipulated the poll results..?
Fine.
Look, if rustydrifter10 wants the list of names, she can go ahead and contact every single one of them individually to hear their side of things.
I didn't fudge a single comma in this process.
And honestly, it isn't fair to label me a cheater when I've handed over the data so you can verify everything yourself.

Again, you're twisting things and blowing this way out of proportion. I don't know what your angle is or why you're doing this, but let me tell you: every single person surveyed expressed loyalty to this forum, as well as a demand for the quality standards that keep us here.
There were plenty of different ideas floating around among the guys—from boycotting the History sub-forum (which is actually happening now), to sending a collective petition to rustydrifter10 to try and stabilize the moderation there, to appealing directly to the site owner, and so on.
None of that reached a final decision; it was just a shared sense of frustration that the group—regardless of how many people are unhappy with specific issues—might end up walking away from the forum tomorrow.
Personally, I'm fighting tooth and nail to stay right here.
I'm trying to encourage us. To not give up just because of one person who thinks they're always right...
Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to leave, and there's nothing I can do about that.

Look, lady...
About 120 colleagues received the list of who participated in the survey.
Stop misleading Arthur Smith15 by telling him he's on the list when he clearly isn't.
If you've got hate to spew, aim it at me instead of feeding false info to the gentleman.
Please... I'm standing right here if you want to talk.

You're directing that at someone else—you fraud! 😁 You truly have no shame...

Frank Foster6 said:Alright, look, if you're actually smart and take pride in your work, start digging into scientific papers, books, and so on. You already know my stances or opinions, so find them across various threads and start challenging the controversial points, or use Wikipedia for that too—that's why we're here. You spend all your time talking about "isoglosses," but that's not the main issue. We're all participating here together so that someone might actually learn something. Sure, you can learn a lot from you regarding spelling mistakes, but we are here for history PDFs, not grammar PDFs. I've learned things from you too, like the concept of "pre-arrival," so thanks for that, but let's get down to business. Let's read primary sources on historical topics and correct disputed claims and viewpoints. Just drop the "isoglosses"... I don't think you actually intended to debunk Wikipedia's claims by arguing whether something is an "isogloss" or an "izogloss"... and then spending a whole month on it... debating whether it's a neck or a throat...

Tell me something—would you ever go to a cut-rate, bottom-tier dentist? Or would you actually take financial advice from someone who barely finished middle school? Of course not. So, I suggest you take a moment to seriously question the level of "expertise" we’re dealing with here. We have an individual who, from one post to the next, endlessly rambles about linguistic topics, tripping over terms like "isoglosses" without even grasping what they mean, acting like languages are just things people "speak" casually, and making arrogant claims about Slovak being anything other than what it actually is. It is pure, unadulterated ignorance. A textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is exactly the kind of commentary I find myself addressing. And don't give me that tired excuse of "well, this is History, not Linguistics." On the contrary, it is precisely within the study of History where this brand of linguistic charlatanism reveals itself in its most egregious form. My point is simple: if someone allows themselves to babble about one subject with zero intellect, zero shame, and total disregard for any correction, then it is highly questionable whether they have anything of substance to say about anything else. At the end of the day, we are talking about the same person and the exact same flawed mindset.

Frank Foster6 said:Alright, look, if you're actually smart and take pride in your work, start digging into scientific papers, books, and so on. You already know my stances or opinions, so find them across various threads and start challenging the controversial points, or use Wikipedia for that too—that's why we're here. You spend all your time talking about "isoglosses," but that's not the main issue. We're all participating here together so that someone might actually learn something. Sure, you can learn a lot from you regarding spelling mistakes, but we are here for history PDFs, not grammar PDFs. I've learned things from you too, like the concept of "pre-arrival," so thanks for that, but let's get down to business. Let's read primary sources on historical topics and correct disputed claims and viewpoints. Just drop the "isoglosses"... I don't think you actually intended to debunk Wikipedia's claims by arguing whether something is an "isogloss" or an "izogloss"... and then spending a whole month on it... debating whether it's a neck or a throat...

That’s fair, and in that regard, you've proven yourself to be a high-quality interlocutor—someone capable of setting aside ego to actually listen to a well-meaning suggestion. My intention wasn't merely to engage in empty "grammar nazism" (if we want to call any linguistic correction that), but rather to offer a suggestion regarding one of the core concepts central to this entire discussion.

Christian Myers said:And is this really okay behavior from a moderator? Rachel Richardson is one of the most active and high-quality people on this thread—she has massive knowledge and solid arguments (even if I don't always agree with them), so her posts definitely don't count as garbage.

Lol 😁 😁 What absolute nonsense...

Frank Foster6 said:Mr. Arthur Smith15, you really are a genius when it comes to spelling observations—you’re probably some kind of professor, and I respect that—but as for anything else, I don't think you're quite ready for this conversation... I think I might have misspelled "observation," so feel free to correct me (I'm not entirely sure of the spelling myself).

No, I only make spelling "observations" when I see some forum philosopher or pseudo-linguist spewing utter drivel about language and etymology. The utility is twofold: it amuses me to play the pedant, and it delights me to expose charlatanism. Plus, it allows readers to see exactly how far an "author" is willing to let their fantasies run wild. And no, I'm not a professor—certainly not based on the caliber of people I find myself correcting. In fact, just recently, I had to teach your defender—this self-proclaimed great forum linguist—that it isn't "isogloss" but "isogloss" [sic]... he didn't even thank me 😁 Right now, I'm busy teaching him what the term actually means, because it certainly doesn't mean what he thinks it does in those hundreds of entries where he tries to act like an expert—though judging by that first quote, he’s managed to sell it quite successfully to some people.

It takes time; it's a process...

Rachel Richardson said:How does this post actually contribute to the topic?
What's the actual value?
So, what we have here is a vulgarity, something completely irrelevant to the topic, and a provocation?

You don't have to resort to a ban—but honestly, this way of arguing just isn't okay.

By definition, that would fall under hate speech.
🎉 Simply because someone was killed for being the wrong nationality.

It’s not a major issue—but it would be nice if things didn't just repeat themselves.

He deserved much more than that.
How many yellow cards would I have racked up if they handed one out every time someone started shouting?

It isn’t about the cardboard boxes—it would simply be better if he stopped acting this way.

Ideology is irrelevant here.
The war is long over, and we aren't expecting another one anytime soon.
History isn't politics; everyone who passed deserves respect.

I have nothing against a little trolling, but the rule-breaking has become excessive.

Your own track record on this forum is absolute garbage, yet here you are, hypocritically leading the charge against someone else, rambling on about "behavior," "trolling," and "rules."🤦

Go ahead, you complainers—keep opening your little polls, but make sure to include a mandatory question about Auschwitz. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that every single one of you is a hardcore revisionist who would spend all day recounting bones, because clearly, it couldn't possibly be that many victims on little Floramya's watch... There is a clear correlation here between being dissatisfied with the moderator and the specific brand of nonsense you'd be spewing in the History section if that moderator weren't standing in your way.

Oh, and can someone tell me if I even made it onto that secret Jonathan Wright2 list—you know, that poll? 😁 The funniest part is how he comes out looking like a fraud either way: if I'm not on it, he's just polling his own supporters; if I am, then he's a fraud (given the latest news...) because he never actually polled me. 😁 Come on, Jonathan Wright2, man, find some backbone and some dignity and just answer the question...

Jonathan Wright2 said:The upside about lonetrucker4 is definitely his dedication—the guy is relentless when it comes to digging through those PDFs.
He’s got an insane amount of knowledge and really knows his stuff.

The real issue is how he forces his own ideology down everyone's throats. He cuts off discussions just when they actually start getting interesting, and he keeps driving members away with constant threats and sanctions. It feels like he’s always pushing his own personal rules as if they’re the actual laws of the forum.

Given all that, threatening the community is pretty much a guarantee.
We aren't seeing any new blood, the regulars are thinning out, and a lot of the old-timers were chased off specifically because of the ruthless approach that ZO (lonetrucker4) insists on using.

rustydrifter10 is in a massive bind here, and she knows it.
She knows lonetrucker4 understands history, but she also clearly sees that the whole thing is spiraling out of control...

You're just talking nonsense and philosophizing aimlessly, as per usual. Your theories don't belong in History, they belong in Alternative...

Timothy Nelson5 said:See, that right there is a perfect example of what goes wrong with moderation.

Can I just call you an "offended pedophile who refuses to be called a pedophile"?
No, because that would be planting ideas and being insulting.
So, don't go around insulting me either.
Alright?

Jack Cook7 and you have both just demonstrated how a serious discussion gets derailed by mindless, trolling insults.
First, Jack Cook7 uses an ad hominem attack just to shift attention away from everything important I wrote toward some completely irrelevant detail.
Then, you keep it going with more insults in this sort of performative tone.

Even lonetrucker4 keeps clouding things up by constantly bringing up that 'yellow' card, acting like that’s why I left, rather than acknowledging the totally toxic atmosphere his moderation creates.

We always end up back at the same point:

People come here to write and generally spend their time on the forum because they actually enjoy it.
If they stop enjoying themselves, they'll leave this sub-forum, or eventually the whole site.
At least, that applies to the higher-quality contributors.

Trolls come here specifically to troll and insult. They get their kicks by venting their frustrations on others. The better the contributor they can insult, the more it feeds their ego.

It seems pretty simple enough.
It's up to the owner and the administration to decide what kind of community structure they actually want to encourage.

Go peddle your alternative nonsense about pyramids and your fake appeals to science somewhere else.😁

The wounded and resentful members of the Alternative crowd who absolutely refuse to be labeled as such 😁 😁>

What a joke, right? Seriously, what kind of absolute losers are we even dealing with here? 😁

Jeffrey Adams said:(...)

For crying out loud, just stop this pathetic whining already.

Jeffrey Adams said:I didn't come here to lecture anyone; I came here to learn.

You aren't listening. You showed up here just to spout your own nonsense, but the second anyone calls you out on it, you suddenly start whining about unfairness and human rights.

Jonathan Wright2 said:It is genuinely paradoxical how much energy people on Reddit pour into these debates, only to have it all blow up in their faces in the end.

The core issue here is this: samo I honestly don't understand why you bother pouring so much energy into this. These posts belong in the "Alternative" section, not under History. I’m not sure what you're actually waiting for, but over there, nobody is going to call you out for making up historical terms, creatively butchering direct quotes from actual sources, or being incredibly stingy—if not outright negligent—with your references. 😁 If you’re struggling to get through your History coursework, don't sweat it too much—just head over to the Alternative sub on Reddit, where a promised land awaits you.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Violation of subforum rules.
30 points.

You know exactly what happens when you hand those out to me...

To be honest, I have no idea how you're justifying this.
I suppose it's just whatever you feel like doing at the moment.

Larry Walker24 said:Arthur Smith15 isn't a moderator, so there's no way he could have issued a penalty.

Shhhh! 😁

... and while you're at it, could you actually specify what that "sanction" was and what kind of reasoning they used to justify it?

Jonathan Wright2 said:Nope.
I wasn't faking any quotes. If I cited a source, then yeah, I gave my own take on it.
I'm not making up terms out of thin air; I'm just interpreting them based on official names.
The terms and concepts haven't "lost" their meaning—they've actually gained more depth.
What I’m trying to get through to you is that the chronicle of History isn't some straight line... History is a jagged curve. It swings wildly to extremes and then swings right back.

All in all, I’ve laid out my opinions and answers in other threads before they got locked and wiped... Though, truth be told, I didn't always get the chance because Mr. Oštrić nuked them.

Look, I’m telling you that it’s worth trying to interpret historical events through your own lens.
That’s the only way to guarantee a decent debate.
You gotta investigate, not just blindly accept everything you read.

In that sense, Reddit is the best place for this stuff.
But, Mr. Oštrić has basically banned that.
And you’re totally fine with it.
Fine, whatever..
Just let me have my own opinion, just like I let everyone else have theirs, so we can actually have a real discussion..

You should be ashamed of yourself for lying like this...

(...) Look, just let me have my opinion, just as I allow everyone else to have theirs, so let the debate live and breathe.

Faking quotes and planting fabricated terminology isn't "having an opinion"—it's just shameless lying and making things up.

Just cut it out already; you're becoming as tedious as a broken record.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, I judge based on the facts I gather, what I learn through experience, what I compare, and what I dig up while chasing a topic—and yeah, once I'm deep into a subject that actually interests me, that's where my own interpretation comes in.
It's an individual, subjective act. Period.

So, basically, I use my own eyes to judge when historical facts are being bypassed, ignored, or irrationally blown out of proportion.

Do you get it now, my dear friend Arthur Smith15?!

🤦 You are the kind of guy who fakes quotes and plants made-up terminology, and no amount of pseudo-philosophical rambling you try to pull will change that. It is truly incredible how you have no shame, stubbornly persisting in this pathetic display of intellectual posturing...

Jonathan Wright2 said:@ Arthur Smith15

Look, I already laid out my whole take in the posts above.
I’m not looking to get into some pointless tug-of-war over nothing.

You’re basically confirming that you've got Mr. Oštrić's back.
Hey, that's your call. Totally fine.

My point is—and I’m trying to redirect the focus here—that PDF History thread is a complete mess where the whole point of this forum just went out the window.

And for the record, I didn't fake anything; I cited every single source I used.
I reserve the right to look at History through a different lens than the "official" version—you know, the one that was partially cooked up under all that mandated censorship.

You use the info however you want and however you think is right.
So, just let me do the same.
Anyone who keeps questioning History isn't doing it for some selfish agenda.

Falsifying quotes and planting invented terminology isn't "interpreting history from a different perspective" or "questioning the status quo"—it is blatant lying and charlatanism. The "purpose of this forum" is certainly not to serve as a playground for your nonsense.