John Smith and stalking

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

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

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

this one of yours is pure poetry.🙏 🙏🙏

@Wikipedia

If you really meant to write about Smith's father like that, you should probably just shoot @bluecyclist64 a DM to lock this thread before anyone else catches on to such low behavior...
It’s pretty nasty on your part, especially since he's one of the few guys here with the guts to post under his actual name and surname...

That's all from me...

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

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

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

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

graniteharbor502 said:bluecyclist64, I hold you in such high regard. 🙂
I find myself inclined to accept you, fully embracing the sheer splendor of your intellect and that unmistakable, brilliant spark you possess. 🙂

To, man—I love you too! 🙂

Roger Castillo9 said:So then what on earth is this supposed to be? 🤷

It would be a true disgrace for anyone actually capable of experiencing that sensation.

driftingorca16 said:Well, that was polite of you.
I think you got your wires crossed here. I never actually commented on how Tompkins gets his funding, nor did I say anything about those other guys facing similar scrutiny.

Go ahead and find me a single post where I said something like that, or were you actually talking about Smith?

@Smith deserves a much more detailed breakdown than this, and honestly, I just don't have the bandwidth for it right now.

Judging by your profile, you seem to lack more than just a sense of timing; you appear to be missing the fundamental capacity for any kind of complex reasoning.😒

lonetrucker4 said:Actually, Judolin's picked up plenty of cards. He was even banned for a day recently. Some guys know when to chill after a slap on the wrist, but others? They just don't know how to shut up.

It’s a good thing you aren't within arm's reach of me, you absolute menace. If we were actually in the same room, I'd have to handle you with the kind of decisive force Princess Leia Organa used—though, frankly, I might just have to break out my best bikini for the occasion.

Out of the last ten cards dealt, five of them belong to you. It seems only logical to conclude that you’re a fascist, because honestly, no one else could be quite this cruel toward us old-school Marxists.🤣

Arthur Smith15 said:How these little Pokémon jump out at you 😁 😁

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

Moderator? Hjao Quote 😁

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

Don't be like that; the kid has great hair and big ambitions.
Let's be realistic here: Kolinda Grabar-Kitović became the first female President of America with similar skill sets.🤷

...written by a guy who spends his time relentlessly kicking and punching, or rather—kicking garbage...

And you really think he's going to marry some poor girl? She'd probably strangle him with a mouse cable at half past five in the morning...😲

Sam Alvarez4 said:@Wikipedia

If you really meant to write about Smith's father like that, you should probably just shoot @bluecyclist64 a DM to lock this thread before anyone else catches on to such low behavior...
It’s pretty nasty on your part, especially since he's one of the few guys here with the guts to post under his actual name and surname...

That's all from me...

How exactly does criticizing the moderation on an entirely different forum—within a completely different context—serve as any kind of justification for stalking? It just doesn't follow.
What exactly is the motivation for revenge?

If someone holds a moderator position, they really shouldn't be in a spot where they can abuse their tools.
His opinion of me doesn't bother me—even if it's completely baseless and glaringly obvious.
The violation of rules—specifically, the harassment—really bothers me.
That part isn't okay at all—not even close.

And it’s honestly just sad how much the troll fest has devolved. What kind of people are we even talking about? (Of course it was reported)—they’re allowed to write a fair amount of nonsense without any consequences whatsoever.
There's also the possibility that they start begging for pictures of private parts—I suppose you could say that’s the absolute limit of their provocation.

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

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

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

Do you honestly believe that any amateur mapmaker can just waltz in and become a legend on these forums?
Pull yourself together.🥳

A rather unpleasant bot, to be honest.

Are you seriously calling me a bot? Me? I’m practically a living legend on these forums.🤣

It would be quite refreshing if they finally stopped bringing that up. Honestly, it’s just not an appropriate way to express oneself.

Oh, absolutely... Just know that I am going to pursue you over this "bot" nonsense until the day I die. Not even Kyle Ris, Sara Connor, or a T-1000 could save you from me then.😈🎉

I find myself constantly pointing out that people’s posts are essentially perfect self-portraits. If you want to know who someone truly is, just look at how they write. It’s all right there on the screen.
If you were actually capable of grasping such a simple sentence, there wouldn't be any limit to what you could achieve. :p

No, he described you perfectly—and anyone who has actually followed your body of work can see that clearly.
It’s always fascinating to observe how much Arthur Smith15 gets under the skin of the pseudo-intellectuals and the charlatans out there. To be honest, that’s exactly why I have such respect for his persona and his body of work. I can't recall a single instance where he lost his cool or resorted to attacking someone who actually brought a coherent argument to the table. He stays composed, even when dealing with the noise.😉

Nicholas Watson said:this one of yours is pure poetry.🙏 🙏🙏

Consider yourself finished. You might try to make a run for it, but there’s nowhere left to hide.🙂

Sam Alvarez4 said:@Wikipedia

If you really meant to write about Smith's father like that, you should probably just shoot @bluecyclist64 a DM to lock this thread before anyone else catches on to such low behavior...
It’s pretty nasty on your part, especially since he's one of the few guys here with the guts to post under his actual name and surname...

That's all from me...

It isn't an "if"; it's a certainty.
Anyone who doesn't know him will certainly pay dearly for that ignorance, wouldn't you agree?😉

What am I even supposed to say to this? 😁
Why on earth would Botić actually send me a picture of that? 😁

Hey Judah, I honestly had no idea you cared about me quite this much 🤣.

driftingorca16 said:Well, that was polite of you.
I think you got your wires crossed here. I never actually commented on how Tompkins gets his funding, nor did I say anything about those other guys facing similar scrutiny.

Go ahead and find me a single post where I said something like that, or were you actually talking about Smith?

@Smith deserves a much more detailed breakdown than this, and honestly, I just don't have the bandwidth for it right now.

Wait, how did you end up thinking you were the one being talked about? 🙂

Rachel Richardson said:What am I even supposed to say to this? 😁
Why on earth would Botić actually send me a picture of that? 😁

Hey Judah, I honestly had no idea you cared about me quite this much 🤣.

You’ve run out of arguments; it’s obvious.
Feel free to keep playing the tough guy. It's nothing new to us, seeing the "heroism" of little cornered rodents trying to act big.😒

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Wait, how did you end up thinking you were the one being talked about? 🙂

And yet, you fail to notice his perfectly appropriate, self-deprecating, buddy-style username?😕

You're just a bot 😁
You haven't said anything intelligent—not that you ever have.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
You use absolutely nothing; your cognition is even worse 🤣

You're only here to entertain the masses—to dance a little bit and then vanish 😁

But fine—for someone whose intellect peaks at this level, I suppose this is it 🤣
Botić 🙂

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Wait, how did you end up thinking you were the one being talked about? 🙂

My bad. These bots are starting to make me feel a little paranoid, I guess. Sorry about that.
😁

@Judah. Get a life. Just cut it out...

@Smith
What’s even the point of GDPR? Z. o. put himself out there by choice. I prefer to just pretend Z. o. is some frustrated guy with a messy past who’s retired and has way too much leftover energy, spending his days trying to prove he hasn't been sent to the scrap heap yet. Since the forum owner gave him a little bit of power, he's completely let himself go. Nobody ever gave him the time of day in his actual life, but now that he’s stumbled onto some authority, he’s absolutely loving it—acting like some bored priest preaching to the choir and hallucinating ghosts from the past that he projects onto everyone else's usernames. You even get these random, unprovoked ego trips that nobody is actually moderating. By definition, you can't have two Smiths; there isn't a regular Smith user and then some alter-ego Smith moderator. There is only Z. o., and you can tell by the way he posts and moderates.
As a local might say: some people only put on a mask for Mardi Gras, while others wear them all year round. That's exactly why we have forum nicknames.
In real life, I hold at least two more academic degrees than this guy, so this whole "scientific approach" he keeps preaching is just a hollow fantasy. His "methodology" is anything but clear. He calls academics garbage, yet treats PhDs in history (Dr. Geiger), demography (Dr. Sterc), and mathematics (Dr. Elezovic) as personas non gratae—all quite selectively, depending on who he feels like targeting. Z. o. describes that infamous Jasenovac camp group victim list in a way that makes it painfully obvious how questionable its scientific foundation actually is. But of course, he doesn't even grasp that; he's too busy obsessing over his own narrative.

Absolutely nobody with even a shred of respect for scientific credibility would ever title a thread the way Z. o. did: White America, Greater America, Black America... Why? Because White America and Greater America are historical terms recorded by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus over a millennium ago. As for Black America, there is zero historical record of that term; it’s a total fabrication. Z. o. is just a hack mixing everything together into one big mess while pretending to take a scholarly approach.
Arguing with him is just a massive waste of time.

driftingorca16 said:@Judah. Get a life. Just cut it out...

@Smith
What’s even the point of GDPR? Z. o. put himself out there by choice. I prefer to just pretend Z. o. is some frustrated guy with a messy past who’s retired and has way too much leftover energy, spending his days trying to prove he hasn't been sent to the scrap heap yet. Since the forum owner gave him a little bit of power, he's completely let himself go. Nobody ever gave him the time of day in his actual life, but now that he’s stumbled onto some authority, he’s absolutely loving it—acting like some bored priest preaching to the choir and hallucinating ghosts from the past that he projects onto everyone else's usernames. You even get these random, unprovoked ego trips that nobody is actually moderating. By definition, you can't have two Smiths; there isn't a regular Smith user and then some alter-ego Smith moderator. There is only Z. o., and you can tell by the way he posts and moderates.
As a local might say: some people only put on a mask for Mardi Gras, while others wear them all year round. That's exactly why we have forum nicknames.
In real life, I hold at least two more academic degrees than this guy, so this whole "scientific approach" he keeps preaching is just a hollow fantasy. His "methodology" is anything but clear. He calls academics garbage, yet treats PhDs in history (Dr. Geiger), demography (Dr. Sterc), and mathematics (Dr. Elezovic) as personas non gratae—all quite selectively, depending on who he feels like targeting. Z. o. describes that infamous Jasenovac camp group victim list in a way that makes it painfully obvious how questionable its scientific foundation actually is. But of course, he doesn't even grasp that; he's too busy obsessing over his own narrative.

Absolutely nobody with even a shred of respect for scientific credibility would ever title a thread the way Z. o. did: White America, Greater America, Black America... Why? Because White America and Greater America are historical terms recorded by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus over a millennium ago. As for Black America, there is zero historical record of that term; it’s a total fabrication. Z. o. is just a hack mixing everything together into one big mess while pretending to take a scholarly approach.
Arguing with him is just a massive waste of time.

Give me a break.
Did you need those two academic degrees just to falsify Orwell's words? Let's look at the full quote:

So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.

...and then we can compare it to your signature. Long live Goebbels.

I'm not entirely sure which specific academics are being discussed here, but if he called Razum a complete scumbag, you have my full support.
Any academic who insists the Earth is a flat plane is nothing more than a fraud, and if they hold an academic title, their entire institution is little more than a glorified sewer.

Look, I’m no academic myself—I work in mathematics and computer science—but I find myself deeply disappointed in Elezovic because the man is clearly talking nonsense. We actually shared workspace back in the day, and to be fair, I don't recall him ever acting like some fascist jerk; however, these latest theories of his are completely devoid of logic. Perhaps he isn't a fascist, but rather some kind of "idiot savant," though Smith has already written extensively on why his reasoning is flawed, so there is really no point in rehashing that here.

That guy Smith is burying his head in the sand by acting this way—honestly, through all this misrepresentation, he seems to think I'm some kind of Muslim rather than just an American.

http://prntscr.com/144n20n

It makes me wonder—where exactly does he get the authority to certify forum users? Does everyone just show up with a Moderator medal pinned to their chest?

We can prove our own identity perfectly well; for instance, I sent him a photo via DM showing a certain peer of mine—Nemmira—to settle the matter once and for all.

driftingorca16 said:@Judah. Get a life. Just cut it out...

@Smith
What’s even the point of GDPR? Z. o. put himself out there by choice. I prefer to just pretend Z. o. is some frustrated guy with a messy past who’s retired and has way too much leftover energy, spending his days trying to prove he hasn't been sent to the scrap heap yet. Since the forum owner gave him a little bit of power, he's completely let himself go. Nobody ever gave him the time of day in his actual life, but now that he’s stumbled onto some authority, he’s absolutely loving it—acting like some bored priest preaching to the choir and hallucinating ghosts from the past that he projects onto everyone else's usernames. You even get these random, unprovoked ego trips that nobody is actually moderating. By definition, you can't have two Smiths; there isn't a regular Smith user and then some alter-ego Smith moderator. There is only Z. o., and you can tell by the way he posts and moderates.
As a local might say: some people only put on a mask for Mardi Gras, while others wear them all year round. That's exactly why we have forum nicknames.
In real life, I hold at least two more academic degrees than this guy, so this whole "scientific approach" he keeps preaching is just a hollow fantasy. His "methodology" is anything but clear. He calls academics garbage, yet treats PhDs in history (Dr. Geiger), demography (Dr. Sterc), and mathematics (Dr. Elezovic) as personas non gratae—all quite selectively, depending on who he feels like targeting. Z. o. describes that infamous Jasenovac camp group victim list in a way that makes it painfully obvious how questionable its scientific foundation actually is. But of course, he doesn't even grasp that; he's too busy obsessing over his own narrative.

Absolutely nobody with even a shred of respect for scientific credibility would ever title a thread the way Z. o. did: White America, Greater America, Black America... Why? Because White America and Greater America are historical terms recorded by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus over a millennium ago. As for Black America, there is zero historical record of that term; it’s a total fabrication. Z. o. is just a hack mixing everything together into one big mess while pretending to take a scholarly approach.
Arguing with him is just a massive waste of time.

Yeah, hit the nail right on the head! As a social activist, I’ve been on disability since 2012, but—hey, I'm still kicking and I'm not going anywhere! 👍

The owner gave him a little bit of power.

The owner didn't meddle in this. He just suggested me for the History PDF supermod role, and the other mods and admins went along with it.

He's seeing ghosts from the past.

That’s somewhat true. But unfortunately—it’s not just an illusion.

By definition, there aren't two Smiths; you can't have one Smith as a user and another Smith as a mod alter ego.

It’s not two people, but there are two roles running on completely different logic.

His scientific method isn't exactly clear.

I’d be more than happy if you posted your clarifications on scientific methodology in historical science over in the Method and criteria in history (historical science) thread. There's not much in there yet, and I think every contribution counts.

He calls academics pieces of crap.

I think he was only talking about one person, Josip Pećarić. Respect to his math work (I actually own one of his little books on inequalities), but his hyper-productive, pseudo-falsificationist nonsense regarding the "Jasenovac sanatorium" is total garbage.

, PhDs in history (Dr. Geiger), demography (Dr. Sterc), and math (Elezovic) are total nobodies.

Not even close to being respected figures. I used to know Geiger and Sterc back in the day.

Geiger actually has some decent academic work—I’ve even cited him before (like that book on Jadovan he co-authored)—but man, his recent takes are a mess because he’s jumped ship to the radical ultra-right. His bitter teardown of Ivo Goldstein's monograph on the Jasenovac camp group was totally unscientific, just a personal, political hit job. Such a waste.

Then there's Sterc. He made these claims about victim counts during the SR era, just playing fast and loose with numbers in a way that flies in the face of everything actual demographers have published. A layman like me can spot the manipulation easily just by looking at his stats. As far as I know, he was just performing for the media; he never actually put out a peer-reviewed paper on it.

And Elezovic? He’s trying to use "math" to argue that the Jasenovac camp group victim list is a total fake. He's super active in this fanatic ultra-right clique that somehow operates under the umbrella of the Archdiocese of Chicago (where Dr. Stjepan Razum works—that Flat Earther bluecyclist64 mentioned). His math skills are fine, but his interpretation? Total garbage.

We already chewed this over on the forums. I'm just posting here to catch up anyone who doesn't hang out in the History subforum.

Nobody with even an ounce of respect for scientific credibility would ever title a thread (like lonetrucker4 did) White America, Greater America, Black America...

Maybe the title sucks. Would you have posted this critique in that specific thread? Look, I'm all for reasonable criticism and good suggestions—I've changed titles plenty of times. But we aren't just talking about the historical concept of "White" or "Greater" America here; the scope is broader, just like it was set in post #1.

In that one discussion (post #212), a user brought up "Black Americans"—the Canadian ""Fekete Horvátok" version—and even cited sources, even if he called them "minor and flawed." You actually made a great point then about the "Eastern Americans" (Polish) from the east side of the Don River.

So, if we're calling this "stalking," then accessing data that’s sitting right here on the forum in just two clicks qualifies, I guess...
The guy wasn't out there Googling names or digging through IP addresses; he just clicked a username and hit "view more posts." If that counts as stalking, then I suppose quoting a comment from yesterday is stalking too, right?
But apparently, that’s where the little leech gets all worked up. Not only did he actually Google things and engage in real stalking, but he even dragged family members into the conversation—which takes the whole "stalking" thing to a whole new level.
Except, since that happened on a different forum, according to some twisted logic, it doesn't count. I guess that other forum isn't in our dimension or something. 🤣

bluecyclist64 said:Give me a break.
Did you need those two academic degrees just to falsify Orwell's words? Let's look at the full quote:

So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.

...and then we can compare it to your signature. Long live Goebbels.

I'm not entirely sure which specific academics are being discussed here, but if he called Razum a complete scumbag, you have my full support.
Any academic who insists the Earth is a flat plane is nothing more than a fraud, and if they hold an academic title, their entire institution is little more than a glorified sewer.

Look, I’m no academic myself—I work in mathematics and computer science—but I find myself deeply disappointed in Elezovic because the man is clearly talking nonsense. We actually shared workspace back in the day, and to be fair, I don't recall him ever acting like some fascist jerk; however, these latest theories of his are completely devoid of logic. Perhaps he isn't a fascist, but rather some kind of "idiot savant," though Smith has already written extensively on why his reasoning is flawed, so there is really no point in rehashing that here.

Should I have put the entirety of, say, Animal Farm in my signature? You’ve nicely confirmed both the Orwell quote in the signature and its broader meaning in context. Thanks. (I probably should have added two commas and some ellipses in the quote). Every other European understood this and included it in the appropriate declaration. It's just our local ideological Neanderthals who still insist on playing victim, leaving us stuck with zombies polluting the political discourse. But hey, neither roses nor justice...
Ahhh, no swearing in your post this time, but plenty of labeling people with fascist antics...
If you're really the mathematician/IT pro you claim to be, then you surely have the skills to prove Elezovic is full of it. And I mean peer-reviewed. Be my guest, the floor is yours. In the meantime,....
You’re citing Smith as an authority? The man literally invented a new theory of evolution just to push a point here on a forum, not to mention that nonsense about the "binary character of polymorphisms." He spends every single day demonstrating nothing more and nothing less than uneducated, ideologically driven incompetence.

lonetrucker4 said:Yeah, hit the nail right on the head! As a social activist, I’ve been on disability since 2012, but—hey, I'm still kicking and I'm not going anywhere! 👍

The owner gave him a little bit of power.

The owner didn't meddle in this. He just suggested me for the History PDF supermod role, and the other mods and admins went along with it.

He's seeing ghosts from the past.

That’s somewhat true. But unfortunately—it’s not just an illusion.

By definition, there aren't two Smiths; you can't have one Smith as a user and another Smith as a mod alter ego.

It’s not two people, but there are two roles running on completely different logic.

His scientific method isn't exactly clear.

I’d be more than happy if you posted your clarifications on scientific methodology in historical science over in the Method and criteria in history (historical science) thread. There's not much in there yet, and I think every contribution counts.

He calls academics pieces of crap.

I think he was only talking about one person, Josip Pećarić. Respect to his math work (I actually own one of his little books on inequalities), but his hyper-productive, pseudo-falsificationist nonsense regarding the "Jasenovac sanatorium" is total garbage.

, PhDs in history (Dr. Geiger), demography (Dr. Sterc), and math (Elezovic) are total nobodies.

Not even close to being respected figures. I used to know Geiger and Sterc back in the day.

Geiger actually has some decent academic work—I’ve even cited him before (like that book on Jadovan he co-authored)—but man, his recent takes are a mess because he’s jumped ship to the radical ultra-right. His bitter teardown of Ivo Goldstein's monograph on the Jasenovac camp group was totally unscientific, just a personal, political hit job. Such a waste.

Then there's Sterc. He made these claims about victim counts during the SR era, just playing fast and loose with numbers in a way that flies in the face of everything actual demographers have published. A layman like me can spot the manipulation easily just by looking at his stats. As far as I know, he was just performing for the media; he never actually put out a peer-reviewed paper on it.

And Elezovic? He’s trying to use "math" to argue that the Jasenovac camp group victim list is a total fake. He's super active in this fanatic ultra-right clique that somehow operates under the umbrella of the Archdiocese of Chicago (where Dr. Stjepan Razum works—that Flat Earther bluecyclist64 mentioned). His math skills are fine, but his interpretation? Total garbage.

We already chewed this over on the forums. I'm just posting here to catch up anyone who doesn't hang out in the History subforum.

Nobody with even an ounce of respect for scientific credibility would ever title a thread (like lonetrucker4 did) White America, Greater America, Black America...

Maybe the title sucks. Would you have posted this critique in that specific thread? Look, I'm all for reasonable criticism and good suggestions—I've changed titles plenty of times. But we aren't just talking about the historical concept of "White" or "Greater" America here; the scope is broader, just like it was set in post #1.

In that one discussion (post #212), a user brought up "Black Americans"—the Canadian ""Fekete Horvátok" version—and even cited sources, even if he called them "minor and flawed." You actually made a great point then about the "Eastern Americans" (Polish) from the east side of the Don River.

So, you just write something and have no clue if you're about to see Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde emerge? There’s actually a clinical term for that pathological state called Dissociative identity disorder (DID).

Why not just come hang out where things actually make sense—Smith is calling. I haven't caught Stockholm syndrome, and frankly, I don't feel comfortable in that subforum, much like the rest of the crowd Smith constantly picks on.

I’ll jot something down, chew on it, fact-check it, and tweak it if it needs it; I put that in my bio too. I know exactly which hat I'm wearing at any given moment. It's not some big deal—it's like how someone who loves both chess and soccer isn't gonna get confused and suddenly try to kick the board mid-match. (And yeah, I'm a fan of chessboxing!) (There was actually this one Norwegian guy who played for the Norwegian national teams in both chess and soccer!)

As for that whole "distinction between victims" thing, that's mostly just a matter of valuing things differently. But facts? Those are different. You're clearly part of the crowd trying to deny the well-documented facts about the Ustaše regime and the Auschwitz camp group. Unfortunately, we have our share of revisionist fakers here, though you aren't nearly as influential as your counterparts over in Mexico. This stuff won't fly here, period. (We even just had a user here, a regular supporter of the Homeland Movement, trying to question the victims of Nazi camps. That won't pass either.)

lonetrucker4 said:I’ll jot something down, chew on it, fact-check it, and tweak it if it needs it; I put that in my bio too. I know exactly which hat I'm wearing at any given moment. It's not some big deal—it's like how someone who loves both chess and soccer isn't gonna get confused and suddenly try to kick the board mid-match. (And yeah, I'm a fan of chessboxing!) (There was actually this one Norwegian guy who played for the Norwegian national teams in both chess and soccer!)

As for that whole "distinction between victims" thing, that's mostly just a matter of valuing things differently. But facts? Those are different. You're clearly part of the crowd trying to deny the well-documented facts about the Ustaše regime and the Auschwitz camp group. Unfortunately, we have our share of revisionist fakers here, though you aren't nearly as influential as your counterparts over in Mexico. This stuff won't fly here, period. (We even just had a user here, a regular supporter of the Homeland Movement, trying to question the victims of Nazi camps. That won't pass either.)

I’m not out here trying to deny anything, so stop making things up. If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up, right? And honestly, the forensics just don't line up with the official narrative. I'm just sitting here wondering what's actually going on.
Since you got caught playing dirty, I'm not buying a single word you say. Nothing.
So, let's say we're talking about Vladimir Geiger over at the American Historical Association in the US. geiger@isp.com:
So, what’s the actual deal with how different historians and the general public have debated the death toll at the Auschwitz camp group since Yugoslavia fell apart? Is it even possible to find any common ground between the academic side and the tabloid version of history anymore?
Facts, controversies, and all the bullshit in between.

It’s pretty wild how Žerjavić lands on 92,000 using his own math, yet Slavko Goldstein looks at that exact same data and somehow walks away with 110,000—which I guess explains why Žerjavić eventually smoothed things over by just saying "around 100,000." Honestly, you can't help but get the feeling that all these shifting numbers, whether it's Žerjavić's range from 40,000 to 50,000, the 92,000 and 100,000 marks, Goldstein's 110,000, or even those later figures of 83,000 and 85,000, were all basically just pulled out of thin air?

So, we're really going with the "trust me, bro" method now? Is that what we're calling it?
That's it, then? Just like that?

I’m typing this out with a massive knot in my stomach because honestly, it’s terrifying how things work here. If you even dare to question whether Žerjavić's math actually holds up, or if the data from the Jasenovac Association lists is even remotely credible—or heaven forbid, you look closely at Goldstein's estimates regarding the number and makeup of the victims at Auschwitz—you're immediately branded a "revisionist" or accused of siding with extremists. It's wild, isn't it? How can anyone even attempt to evaluate the competence of his followers without being treated like a criminal?