Why is Nick so obsessed with defending Zoran's moderation without any explanation?

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, Miller was just a link... I don't actually take him seriously, but at the time I was listening to what he had to say, so I used him in the intro... Not that lonetrucker4 is going to hunt me down asking where I got all this info—I mean, a person can't just pull these things out of thin air without some kind of source, right?
Basically, you aren't allowed to have an opinion or think for yourself—you just have to follow the script. That’s the absolute worst thing about lonetrucker4. He just kills any actual discourse.

I don't get it...
Am I not allowed to criticize or question the previous regime?

I tried to follow your logic there, but I think you totally lost the plot. You typed out a massive wall of text—and hey, thanks for the effort, really—but the point is: am I not allowed to doubt the official narrative? Am I supposed to just accept whatever is said and written as gospel?

Do you even realize this is a forum...?
A forum has a definition.
One of those definitions is having opposing views... Disagreement is the literal backbone of a forum.
I try to be brutally level-headed.
Look, I support the WWII era stuff, but I also understand there's plenty to criticize within it...

I totally hear you, and honestly, thanks for keeping it real.
Of course the threads I start have holes in them and missing pieces.
No doubt about it...
But that’s literally why we’re all here—to hash things out and debate...
Except then lonetrucker4 rolls in and shuts the whole thing down, and boom, end of story.
If a topic doesn't sit right with him, then it basically shouldn't exist at all.

On the flip side, though, how do you not see what's happening...?
Sure, back lonetrucker4 up, he’s a great forum regular, but how can you miss the serious issue with his moderation when it’s actively killing the whole purpose of this place...?!

It’s just the same old broken record with you, over and over again... Honestly, I’m starting to worry about the fate of your childhood rubber duckies if this is how you handle things...

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, Miller was just a link... I don't actually take him seriously, but at the time I was listening to what he had to say, so I used him in the intro... Not that lonetrucker4 is going to hunt me down asking where I got all this info—I mean, a person can't just pull these things out of thin air without some kind of source, right?
Basically, you aren't allowed to have an opinion or think for yourself—you just have to follow the script. That’s the absolute worst thing about lonetrucker4. He just kills any actual discourse.

I don't get it...
Am I not allowed to criticize or question the previous regime?

I tried to follow your logic there, but I think you totally lost the plot. You typed out a massive wall of text—and hey, thanks for the effort, really—but the point is: am I not allowed to doubt the official narrative? Am I supposed to just accept whatever is said and written as gospel?

Do you even realize this is a forum...?
A forum has a definition.
One of those definitions is having opposing views... Disagreement is the literal backbone of a forum.
I try to be brutally level-headed.
Look, I support the WWII era stuff, but I also understand there's plenty to criticize within it...

I totally hear you, and honestly, thanks for keeping it real.
Of course the threads I start have holes in them and missing pieces.
No doubt about it...
But that’s literally why we’re all here—to hash things out and debate...
Except then lonetrucker4 rolls in and shuts the whole thing down, and boom, end of story.
If a topic doesn't sit right with him, then it basically shouldn't exist at all.

On the flip side, though, how do you not see what's happening...?
Sure, back lonetrucker4 up, he’s a great forum regular, but how can you miss the serious issue with his moderation when it’s actively killing the whole purpose of this place...?!

That’s not what I said. You kept doubling down on the whole "criticism" thing, and since you clearly value being a critic, let me clarify my point. Real critical thinking means actually digging through the available literature, noting the discrepancies, and then presenting an opposing view based on hard facts and evidence. But here’s the thing—both lonetrucker4 and several others pointed you toward books you haven't even cracked open. You didn't seem aware that tons of historians have done deep dives into the Battle of Sutjeska, much like they’ve studied the Ottoman expansion into Europe or the victims of old-school intelligence agencies. Instead, you just flat-out declared everything was garbage and demanded we start from scratch. Do you see the difference between your approach and actual methodology? Science has protocols; you can't just waltz in and spout nonsense. Did you study existing research? No. Did you build an actual argument? No. Instead, you just jumped straight to a conclusion. A conclusion that, as it turns out, was wrong. So, maybe don't act surprised when people call you out on it.

Eric Newman75 said:That’s not what I said. You kept doubling down on the whole "criticism" thing, and since you clearly value being a critic, let me clarify my point. Real critical thinking means actually digging through the available literature, noting the discrepancies, and then presenting an opposing view based on hard facts and evidence. But here’s the thing—both lonetrucker4 and several others pointed you toward books you haven't even cracked open. You didn't seem aware that tons of historians have done deep dives into the Battle of Sutjeska, much like they’ve studied the Ottoman expansion into Europe or the victims of old-school intelligence agencies. Instead, you just flat-out declared everything was garbage and demanded we start from scratch. Do you see the difference between your approach and actual methodology? Science has protocols; you can't just waltz in and spout nonsense. Did you study existing research? No. Did you build an actual argument? No. Instead, you just jumped straight to a conclusion. A conclusion that, as it turns out, was wrong. So, maybe don't act surprised when people call you out on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

lonetrucker4 said:You keep saying the same thing over and over—honestly, you probably believe your own hype at this point. I went ahead and lifted the redaction on that post you got flagged for; that one-day timeout is officially over. It’s done. post #35, od 4. siječnja o.g.In that "Water Cooler" thread (closed now, just opened it for a minute to vent).

Post počinje s

lonetrucker4 is just a straight-up paranoid nutjob with enough power to be dangerous.
Man, this guy thinks he could take down half of Congress if he had the chance.

Then there's that link to the "Motion for a Resolution" from back in September 2021. Don't let the title fool you—it wasn't some massive movement backed by half of Congress. It was just a handful of sponsors, maybe even just one lone Representative acting on their own. And guess what? It got shot down immediately.

It’s right there in the paperwork, and you're just repeating what it says:

The FDA is out here claiming about 5,000 folks across the States kicked the bucket because of those COVID shots. Just another number on a spreadsheet, I guess.

Imagine if some major agency like the CDC dropped a bomb saying 5,000 people died because of a vaccine. Total chaos.

That's a total lie. Just check the FDA website—it's right there. You didn't even come up with this crap yourself, you just blindly swallowed some fake news and now you're doubling down on it.

If you’re this reckless and stubborn with data that's easy to fact-check, why on earth would anyone trust a single word you say about complex stuff like military aviation? It just doesn't add up.

Before that (back on Jan 2nd), you already caught a five-point penalty for going off-topic, specifically when you were posting in that thread about the future of the Air Force's supersonic component. post #5941, kao temu "iz područja aeromedicine", gdje prenosiš da u SAD:

More than 200k service members have already walked, yet the brass keeps pushing like they don't care that morale is cratering and readiness is going down the drain just to process these folks out.

So, you got something to say? Spit it out.

So far, I only know of two pilots worldwide who’ve actually come forward about the side effects from the shots. Honestly? Most of them are probably just keeping their mouths shut because they can't afford to lose their livelihoods.

It could’ve been an even bigger mess. You asked Buck on the forums, and he gave you a massive breakdown with a pretty cautious takeaway in post #5945:

Personally, I feel like people are blowing the pilot shortage out of proportion; things aren't nearly as dire as everyone's making them out to be.

But nope, that was enough for you to label me a "paranoid nutjob" and run off spreading lies to the rest of the group.

So, yeah, enjoy your one-day ban.

Go ahead and whine that it's unfair or too harsh, but don't try to deny you actually typed it.

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

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

Over and out...

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

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

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

Over and out...

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

Yeah, you definitely spread vaccine hysteria.

The proof is in that last thread you started on this forum, where you posted a link to something that was debunked ages ago.

I guess you didn't expect anyone to actually call out a dead link like that.
But when someone finally pointed it out, your only response was "it doesn't matter."

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

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

Over and out...

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

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

Sam Alvarez4 said:Yeah, you definitely spread vaccine hysteria.

The proof is in that last thread you started on this forum, where you posted a link to something that was debunked ages ago.

I guess you didn't expect anyone to actually call out a dead link like that.
But when someone finally pointed it out, your only response was "it doesn't matter."

So sure, let's all enjoy my supposedly "hysterical" views. Moving toward paranoia should be easy enough. 🎉

Nicholas Barnes74 said:I mean, I honestly think a lot of people probably skip over that section entirely just because he isn't around anymore.

Are you one of those people too?

Larry Walker24 said:Well, I'm one of them.

It never fails to amuse me when people start preaching about the "greater good" while completely trampling over the individual. It’s a tired old pattern, isn't it? Everyone gets so caught up in celebrating some collective milestone that they conveniently forget there are actual human beings behind those numbers—people whose own well-being is being sacrificed for the sake of the group's optics. I've seen it happen countless times in corporate offices from Chicago to Seattle; management celebrates a record-breaking quarter while ignoring the burnout and quiet misery of the staff who actually did the heavy lifting. It's a hollow kind of victory.👍

Jessica Morris6 said:It’s just the same old broken record with you, over and over again... Honestly, I’m starting to worry about the fate of your childhood rubber duckies if this is how you handle things...

It feels as though Providence itself saw fit to drop you right into my path.🙏
Someone really ought to take poor Jonathan Wright2 and bring him over to my side at Alternative...🙂

John Palmer9 said:They own the site, so I suppose they can do whatever they want. Honestly, this might actually be a good thing; since traffic is so low, maybe they'll just start an "out with lonetrucker4" campaign on Reddit to drum up some engagement and get those numbers back up.

Anderlone, for heaven's sake, did I not explicitly advise you against liquidating that controlling block of shares?🙂

This thread is an absolute dumpster fire.🤣

bluecyclist64 said:Are you one of those people too?

It never fails to amuse me when people start preaching about the "greater good" while completely trampling over the individual. It’s a tired old pattern, isn't it? Everyone gets so caught up in celebrating some collective milestone that they conveniently forget there are actual human beings behind those numbers—people whose own well-being is being sacrificed for the sake of the group's optics. I've seen it happen countless times in corporate offices from Chicago to Seattle; management celebrates a record-breaking quarter while ignoring the burnout and quiet misery of the staff who actually did the heavy lifting. It's a hollow kind of victory.👍

It feels as though Providence itself saw fit to drop you right into my path.🙏
Someone really ought to take poor Jonathan Wright2 and bring him over to my side at Alternative...🙂

Anderlone, for heaven's sake, did I not explicitly advise you against liquidating that controlling block of shares?🙂

This thread is an absolute dumpster fire.🤣

He’s probably already lurking there with two or three different accounts anyway...

John Palmer9 said:They own the site, so I suppose they can do whatever they want. Honestly, this might actually be a good thing; since traffic is so low, maybe they'll just start an "out with lonetrucker4" campaign on Reddit to drum up some engagement and get those numbers back up.

Who, me!? 🤔

There is nothing quite as absurdly infuriating as watching a massive spectacle unfold—all that endless complaining, the public whining, the sheer melodrama and performative outrage—only to discover that the entire circus was ignited by nothing more than five measly reward points. 😁 ...

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

No.
No.
Not a chance, lonetrucker4.
That’s just your little mantra that you keep looping over and over.
Whether it's Captain or Major, anyone who actually knows their history isn't confused by it. And for those following this thread? Even less so.
Ivan Ribar Sr. and Ivan Ribar Jr. are names found in official records. "Lolo" is a nickname. Period.

Glad you brought this up again... precisely what I'm talking about. About your mindless sanctions if someone doesn't use "Lolo" or "Major/Captain"...
You look at this community as if it's just a bunch of clueless idiots. You're acting like some small-town schoolteacher trying to lecture everyone.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Whether it's a quote or not, it doesn't mean anything to you.
I quoted the Velebit text, and then you just deleted it.
The real diagnosis here is that nothing exists unless you personally approve of it.
A person should be able to act however they want, but you've got this bitter attitude eating you alive, and you're dumping it all on your colleagues.
Do us all a favor: let go of your own baggage and stop dumping it on the rest of us..

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Yeah, hilarious.. You're right about that...
Let me explain it to you for the 7th time.
What I explained to you in our private messages, which you completely ignored, is this:
If the official name of the armed forces of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia prior to the collapse in 1941 was the "Yugoslav Royal Army," then we have to conclude that Mihailović's drunken attempt to start a parallel organization involved dropping "Royal" from the name, even though that force was actually loyal to the King...
That was my point. That's how I answered you..
But if you recall, I explained the exact same logic regarding the OZNA/Intelligence Department.
And there's no need to write out "OZNA" just because some random person in 1946 wrote it that way by accident..

Thanks for reminding me why we always butt heads... Now that I look at it, most of this stuff is incredibly minor and honestly pretty irrelevant, but apparently, it’s the entire foundation of how you operate. It’s just unnecessary to start handing out sanctions over tiny details that don't even change the actual context of the conversation.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Classic you... You think you're right. And that's all that matters to you. If you decide something is true, then in your head, it just is.
Honestly, you're a terrible choice for a moderator.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

My mistake for not emphasizing that specific term enough. You've got a point there.
But you are dead wrong when you suggest this was some sort of coastal battalion mentioned years later.
If we're following the trail, the truth is... it was an unidentified local anti-fascist group that eventually evolved into something else.
The whole point was to prove that the official government encyclopedias aren't the final word on everything.
History is mostly written after the fact... at least, a good chunk of it is.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Me?
So what about it?
Look, I’ve got an opinion—whether I’m wrong or not, just leave it alone... just let me post. If I’m off base, then shut me down with actual arguments.
But you aren't even letting this forum function like a damn forum.
That's the whole point here.
The alternative is that everyone should just write exactly how you want them to.
And that's just nonsense.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Are you kidding me right now..?
You're joking, right?
Data from 1986?!
When the plaque was put up back in 2012, or somewhere around there....
I mean, come on, get real... To you, data from the old American era is the only thing that matters, while anything more recent doesn't count.
Let's be clear here.... I am not a revisionist, I'm not some far-right extremist, and I don't belong to any weird political factions.. Quite the opposite, actually.
But history is still being uncovered today...
And we are talking about specific details here.
Maybe there were some communists or Young Communist League types in that organization, but it wasn't a dominant communist sub-group..
Maybe in some historical revisions from the 70s or 80s it becomes that...

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Stubbornly defending my right to ignorance...
Now that is rich..👍

If you'll permit me, I've got a little critique for you too.
You're basically acting like you have a monopoly on the truth.

Honestly, this is just completely bizarre. 🤔

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Sure... The community is what matters, so don't act like you're the only one here.

Check out this absolute joke:

Jonathan Wright2 said:No.
No.
Not a chance, lonetrucker4.
That’s just your little mantra that you keep looping over and over.
Whether it's Captain or Major, anyone who actually knows their history isn't confused by it. And for those following this thread? Even less so.
Ivan Ribar Sr. and Ivan Ribar Jr. are names found in official records. "Lolo" is a nickname. Period.

Glad you brought this up again... precisely what I'm talking about. About your mindless sanctions if someone doesn't use "Lolo" or "Major/Captain"...
You look at this community as if it's just a bunch of clueless idiots. You're acting like some small-town schoolteacher trying to lecture everyone.

Whether it's a quote or not, it doesn't mean anything to you.
I quoted the Velebit text, and then you just deleted it.
The real diagnosis here is that nothing exists unless you personally approve of it.
A person should be able to act however they want, but you've got this bitter attitude eating you alive, and you're dumping it all on your colleagues.
Do us all a favor: let go of your own baggage and stop dumping it on the rest of us..

Yeah, hilarious.. You're right about that...
Let me explain it to you for the 7th time.
What I explained to you in our private messages, which you completely ignored, is this:
If the official name of the armed forces of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia prior to the collapse in 1941 was the "Yugoslav Royal Army," then we have to conclude that Mihailović's drunken attempt to start a parallel organization involved dropping "Royal" from the name, even though that force was actually loyal to the King...
That was my point. That's how I answered you..
But if you recall, I explained the exact same logic regarding the OZNA/Intelligence Department.
And there's no need to write out "OZNA" just because some random person in 1946 wrote it that way by accident..

Thanks for reminding me why we always butt heads... Now that I look at it, most of this stuff is incredibly minor and honestly pretty irrelevant, but apparently, it’s the entire foundation of how you operate. It’s just unnecessary to start handing out sanctions over tiny details that don't even change the actual context of the conversation.

Classic you... You think you're right. And that's all that matters to you. If you decide something is true, then in your head, it just is.
Honestly, you're a terrible choice for a moderator.

My mistake for not emphasizing that specific term enough. You've got a point there.
But you are dead wrong when you suggest this was some sort of coastal battalion mentioned years later.
If we're following the trail, the truth is... it was an unidentified local anti-fascist group that eventually evolved into something else.
The whole point was to prove that the official government encyclopedias aren't the final word on everything.
History is mostly written after the fact... at least, a good chunk of it is.

Me?
So what about it?
Look, I’ve got an opinion—whether I’m wrong or not, just leave it alone... just let me post. If I’m off base, then shut me down with actual arguments.
But you aren't even letting this forum function like a damn forum.
That's the whole point here.
The alternative is that everyone should just write exactly how you want them to.
And that's just nonsense.

Are you kidding me right now..?
You're joking, right?
Data from 1986?!
When the plaque was put up back in 2012, or somewhere around there....
I mean, come on, get real... To you, data from the old American era is the only thing that matters, while anything more recent doesn't count.
Let's be clear here.... I am not a revisionist, I'm not some far-right extremist, and I don't belong to any weird political factions.. Quite the opposite, actually.
But history is still being uncovered today...
And we are talking about specific details here.
Maybe there were some communists or Young Communist League types in that organization, but it wasn't a dominant communist sub-group..
Maybe in some historical revisions from the 70s or 80s it becomes that...

Stubbornly defending my right to ignorance...
Now that is rich..👍

If you'll permit me, I've got a little critique for you too.
You're basically acting like you have a monopoly on the truth.

Honestly, this is just completely bizarre. 🤔

Sure... The community is what matters, so don't act like you're the only one here.

All because this guy can't grasp the basics of actually quoting someone correctly.

lonetrucker4 said:Check out this absolute joke:

All because this guy can't grasp the basics of actually quoting someone correctly.

Seriously, just take a look... please.

Look, lonetrucker4, I truly wish you nothing but the best, I really do—but man, you’ve gotta try to step back and look at the big picture here. We’re stuck in this endless cycle of conflict that’s been dragging on way too long, and we aren't getting anywhere...

🤣 Dammit, you can find more sense in a fortune cookie than in this thread. This whole topic is just a massive pile of nonsense.
🤣

Grace Wood5 said:🤣 Dammit, you can find more sense in a fortune cookie than in this thread. This whole topic is just a massive pile of nonsense.
🤣

Give it a rest.

I wasn't picking a fight here; I was just stating the facts.
If you don't know the difference, go look it up in a dictionary. 🙂