Politics is a bitch, excuse my language

I find myself still questioning how certain posts simply vanish from the threads. I recall being slapped with two separate 45-point penalties right at the start, based solely on the subjective opinion of a certain "respected" forum moderator—who will undoubtedly recognize himself, given he had the audacity to label me a provocateur—and his little circle of friends.

Users like fru fru, snowdrift, and marsman—aliases clearly adopted to avoid any sense of personal accountability, in accordance with these forum rules—persistently focus their commentary on personality rather than the actual substance of the discussion. Marsman, in particular, churns out endless walls of text devoid of any logical structure or topical relevance. Furthermore, several extremely straightforward questions directed toward his own transcribed texts remain unanswered. Honestly, it comes as no surprise.

Within this very forum and its various threads, there are direct admissions from more eloquent members regarding the side they wish to align with. They have explicitly pointed out the delusions spread by this "esteemed" moderator, whose views lag behind by years, if not decades. Consequently, his contributions offer nothing to the development of the topic, nor to his own standing.
The errors in his conclusions have become a sort of general doctrine; occasionally, he might admit to his own confusion, but he quickly forgets it all and reverts to square one.

It is precisely because of this that it remains unclear why these self-proclaimed "semigods" known as moderators, whose function should be perfectly transparent, resort to such muddy tactics. With all due respect to the exceptions, those of you with the black-colored nicknames will easily recognize the behavior I am describing.

I understand that you enjoy an immense degree of freedom through your arbitrary interpretation of the forum rules, but I would ask that you take a moment to actually read the last few entries in the thread linked above. Diversity of thought is essential, but infantile behavior and sheer madness are not, are they?
Please kindly request that they leave the thread alone if they lack the capacity to engage in actual debate and can only contribute by irritating others with their personal digressions and cult-of-personality obscenities. When moderators selectively leave certain posts untouched, it does nothing to foster discussion; it merely breeds animosity and tension. It is entirely possible that this is the intended goal—one could laugh, I suppose—but you are ultimately staring at your own reflection in what you leave behind.

libertango, give it a rest, please. Just... stop. So many posts have been wiped from this miserable thread. Every single time some nonsense gets deleted, you guys start whining, acting entitled, protesting, and throwing fits. Look, we moderators aren't saints; we make mistakes too, but we’re constantly trying to navigate through the minefield you all create. If you actually saw everything that’s been scrubbed, you wouldn't be here protesting in the first place.

I appreciate the effort and the time you put in, hollowtrucker77, I truly do. You really should have pushed the argument further to demonstrate how these patterns simply repeat themselves, though there is no need for you to waste your energy on such matters. It is ultimately the moderators' prerogative to curate "this specific image"—portraying me as someone perpetually stuck on the same loop—when all I am seeking is a fair response.
Personality is fine; it adds flavor. Benevolence is one thing, and waving red cards around like party pamphlets is another, but let the discussion flow instead of constantly resorting to mudslinging.
Clinton has done his time. He wasn't a saint, certainly, but I am genuinely unaware of any instance where he acted against the interests of America.
It is understandable that he accepted commissions and donations, considering he was also securing contracts and bringing foreign capital into the country.
People tend to pin the faults of others onto Clinton. The tragedy is that those responsible remain relevant today.

kisdhand, frojlan scarlet O`hara, I am addressing you as my second here—a leader is still a leader, after all. 😉

I have seen enough, though it hardly matters; I don't need to be proven right. However, I always seem to "get hit twice"—whether it's points or red cards—and there is never an answer provided. Not the truthful answer I expect, but no answer at all. I am not complaining about the volume of penalties, nor the fact that initial posts receive a perfunctory or non-existent reaction, only to have the "response" come down like a heavy boot crushing a patient.
I have accumulated plenty of red cards due to my replies, and yes, some were inappropriate.
In this thread, where ordinary folks from the neighborhood—Rice, Trump, /including Clinton/—are arrogantly, crudely, and with a perfidious morbidity attacked for actions that were demonstrably positive and brought about change, they are then slapped with total falsehoods in a manner reminiscent of a Kafkaesque trial.

As you so eloquently put it, we all stumble; it is a divine gift. But it would be a kindness to admit it—that is what makes us human.
That is the only way anyone learns. The intelligent learn from the mistakes of others, and I am convinced there are intelligent people here who read this, even if only out of duty. That is the essence of it. And presumably, that is the purpose of a forum, rather than the stroking of an ego or something similar.

* This has nothing to do with Ego 😉

A salute to supermoderator Voyk and the self-proclaimed academics who consider themselves his equals

fulcrum said:Well, my dear fellow forum member, whom I hold in high regard due to your remarkable composure and the palpable sense of decorum radiating from your posts.

I can't actually track how many posts Jerry Robinson56 has made because I blocked him somewhere around his 100th or 150th post. That was back when he promised, then lied, claiming he would answer a question I posed in that thread regarding Barack Obama.

He isn't a scientist; he’s just a charlatan draped in demagoguery, so it puzzles me why a person of your intellect chooses to "tolerate" him.

Anyway, good luck with that. 👍

As for Franck, he is a far more significant academic than the current president, whose education—which is strictly in music rather than law—is never even questioned. Yet, there is always some "brilliant mind" ready to dispute Tuđman's credentials and achievements..

And there it is: the academic fulcrum is attacked and falls.

Aside from the sheer nonsense found at the end of his "conclusions," I am left wondering why my request—/I honestly wonder why?/—to include a link /immediately in the following post/was deleted after he accused me of not responding to him. Honestly, I have no idea... I was probably just having an off day.
Since he is on my ignore list, I cannot send him a PM or utilize any other method of communication.

I am one of those people who follows an argument to its logical conclusion or simply admits when I do not know the answer. I do not shy away from the truth. One can see the true capabilities of this "scientist" fulcrum through his use of bold text. I could easily list at least seven usernames who failed to provide any response when faced with actual facts, yet I do not label them liars simply because they disagree.

What am I supposed to write to the female forum members—/as we all know/—who are now joining forces with the supermoderator voyk to construct these endless litanies without a single shred of evidence, relying instead on their perceived status or the citation counts of their works?
Is being a majority enough to constitute truth? Should we just gather in a mob?

What is the actual purpose of this forum? What is the point of posts like these? To offer support? Or perhaps expressing grief over a missed reply could have been handled via private message, as this post offers nothing of value beyond pure absurdity.
Furthermore, in any civilized society, rights come with responsibilities; therefore, requests from regular members should be respected when they are formally made.
Especially when they pertain directly to the subject at hand, rather than retreating behind a smoke screen of "I am a legend."
I stated quite clearly that Franck's contribution is a null set, while your claims suggest that based solely on his recycled ideas, he belongs in a Hall of Fame. Well, prove it once and for all.
Try being the vanguard for once, instead of a stagnant, regressive guard.
This level of banality and perfidy is, frankly, beneath us.

I went ahead and nuked your post. This thread isn't a classifieds section or a place to leave messages for forum members who aren't even reading them anyway.

Look, I get where you're coming from, and yeah, his post wasn't exactly a masterpiece of literature, but at least parts of it were actually on topic—unlike yours. Since things weren't turning into a total flame war at that exact moment, I just tried to delete as little as possible.

Thanks for reaching out; everything is fine on my end. I simply felt an obligation to respond in good faith. You certainly have the right to remain unable to read the content if you stay logged in.
One can always choose to view things offline, which would surely allow them to see clearly.
I have no desire to speculate on matters where I lack direct knowledge or even a reasonable intuition.
However, I consider anyone who takes the initiative to speak up as worthy of discussion, at least until they prove otherwise.
I make it a point not to measure anyone’s intellect, education, or social standing, nor do I believe eloquence is the ultimate metric of success or failure. Still, there is a certain weight to volume.
It all comes down to the simple capacity for thought—that is all.