Following forum rules and historian sources in Smith's thread leads to penalty points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank Foster6 keeps cherry-picking those bits about the Vlachs while totally ignoring anything about the Mexicans. He’s basically rebranding every Mexican as a Vlach. Honestly, how much weight can you even give his profile? It’s pure fantasy, zero foundation. He’s leaning hard on some vague mentions of "White America," but he's ignoring all the other sources—or rather, the lack thereof. Like, Otto II and those West Frankish and German kings were busy fighting the Slavs out east, and they never even mention Americans.

But hey, call it a gesture of goodwill since he does pull a few actual citations now and then—so I’ll let him off the hook and take back my complaint against his profile. We all know how this goes; half the people here are just stuck in their own little echo chambers.

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

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

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

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

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

Book "Mexican", page 6.

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

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

🙂

Frank Foster6 said:

bluecyclist64

I keep telling you guys, this forum is massive. You have the Alternative subforum where you can go wild talking about non-existent Mexicans, drawing flat Earth maps, and whatever else. Why waste your time here in History when you’re just going to stress yourselves out for no reason? Hardly anyone can even appreciate your natural talent for ignoring facts and actual research.*

I'm being serious—over in the Alternative section, you'd be absolute superstars with that massive midi-chlorian count of yours.

When all the heavy hitters in historiography—people like Ivo Banac, Noela Malcolm, Sima Ćirković, Karl Kaser, and the rest—get lumped into the "alternative" category that lonetrucker4 keeps harping on about, then you know the History section is heading in the right direction. Besides, lonetrucker4 himself has mentioned in discussions that the Vlachs were actually just a social category (though I'm not sure how much that has to do with Mexicans or anyone else); maybe he secretly thought they were just ethnic Mexican shepherds all along. Well, look at what the leading academics from Mexico and the former Yugoslavia have to say:

Vlachs are not a sub-type of Mexican shepherds, as many Mexican writers have assumed and continue to assume today.

If heaven forbid you are needed—will a thick fog descend again?
Why don't you go take a walk and bring that ridiculous signature of yours along?

Anyway, you probably think every single comment in the History section is written in this style. Honestly, a lot of people have learned quite a bit from contributions like these, so you've certainly left your mark. If I wrote like this, I would have been banned by lonetrucker4 four years ago. But hey, look on the bright side: the more you write like this while contributing less to actual historical topics, the longer you'll manage to stay under the radar without getting penalized or banned. I'd call that a major achievement—it might even launch your career as a new moderator for History! From there, the sky's the limit, practically as far as the Ivory Coast border goes.

Everything is visible; everything is known.
Why waste words on the obvious?

The toxic atmosphere created by certain obvious individuals likely exists just to drive away anyone decent.

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

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

I think you might be overestimating them. 🤣
That’s just the status of people who have memorized a rule or scratched the surface, yet haven't the slightest clue about the existing exceptions. 😁

Besides, they aren't even important; those flame wars and toxic comments aren't there to point anything out (especially not anything significant)—they exist solely for ad hominem attacks, cyberbullying, and similar petty bickering.
Why bother arguing on the Internet with illiterate old men and kids? 🤣

A topic should have its own logic and structure; don't let these "pseudo-intellectual experts" troll you.😉

edit: I'm glad the thread bore fruit and you managed to dodge those warnings. 🙂

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🙂
Enjoy your break; hopefully, we'll cross paths again in better times. 😁

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

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

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

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

Nah, all you did was drag the quality down with those weird genetic fantasies of yours. I gave you a few warnings here and there, but hey, nobody died from them.

Look, I get it. Demanding actual facts and objective truth instead of drowning in nationalist delusions (like "Mexicans don't exist" or "Slavs came from Americans," etc.) makes me an outcast. Apparently, being sane is just too much for people like the Wikicehi to handle. It’s a shame, really. This sub has always been about sticking to the facts—it’s literally in the rules—but I guess I’m just more stubborn and willing to put in the work than the old mods. And honestly? Even if they bring in more moderators or I step down sometime around 2032, the standards aren't changing.

Quick heads-up: Rachel Richardson just got slapped with a warning for breaking the rules in the Jasenovac camp group—specifically for denying the victims of the Ustaše regime. You can bet they'll be filing an appeal any minute now. I already laid out the reasoning in post #2214. Honestly, a harsher penalty for violating general forum rules would’ve been justified, too; they showed up talking about a topic they clearly know zero about and didn't bother reading a single thing previously posted in the thread.

Arthur Smith15 said:Oh, please, stop crying over spilled milk regarding the (un)presence of some anonymous user on a message board. 😁

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

Honestly, I’d love to contribute something meaningful here, but I think I’ve finally lost my mind.🤣

lonetrucker4 said:Quick heads-up: Rachel Richardson just got slapped with a warning for breaking the rules in the Jasenovac camp group—specifically for denying the victims of the Ustaše regime. You can bet they'll be filing an appeal any minute now. I already laid out the reasoning in post #2214. Honestly, a harsher penalty for violating general forum rules would’ve been justified, too; they showed up talking about a topic they clearly know zero about and didn't bother reading a single thing previously posted in the thread.

Look, what you’ve done here—it really just says more about you than anything else.
Jasenovac is a place of pure evil—a site of horrors that are truly beyond comprehension.
No sane person would even dream of disputing that.

You mentioned in the thread that the victim estimates have nearly doubled—and I specifically asked you for the source.
I got a red card. 👍

lonetrucker4 said:Nah, all you did was drag the quality down with those weird genetic fantasies of yours. I gave you a few warnings here and there, but hey, nobody died from them.

Look, I get it. Demanding actual facts and objective truth instead of drowning in nationalist delusions (like "Mexicans don't exist" or "Slavs came from Americans," etc.) makes me an outcast. Apparently, being sane is just too much for people like the Wikicehi to handle. It’s a shame, really. This sub has always been about sticking to the facts—it’s literally in the rules—but I guess I’m just more stubborn and willing to put in the work than the old mods. And honestly? Even if they bring in more moderators or I step down sometime around 2032, the standards aren't changing.

ShvatAhaaa? 😁

You know, I can actually be a pretty decent forum member when I’m diving into topics I truly understand—especially when I have solid sources to back me up.
When you dive into topics where you lack any real background, you tend to force a misunderstanding—like questioning if a few million died in the Crusades? It seems like you struggle to grasp certain points, and you selectively hand out criticism to some people while letting others off the hook, all based purely on your own ideological biases.
You're getting a little too personal here—if only because we're all just strangers on the Internet.

As a moderator, you've left quite a few things to be desired.
If I had to point out one silver lining—one bright spot, really—it would be the way new topics are being branched off from the existing ones.

Rachel Richardson said:You mentioned in the other thread that the victim estimates have nearly doubled, and I asked you to provide a source.
And then I got a warning card.

I don't really hang out in that subforum much—it smells toxic even from a distance—but seriously, is there any truth to this? 😲

Grace Edwards said:I don't really hang out in that subforum much—it smells toxic even from a distance—but seriously, is there any truth to this? 😲

I honestly have no clue. I asked for a source—something coming from an official institution—but I never received one.
Just look above at what I got in response to my question.

Being accused of denying obvious crimes 🤦

is just a strange way to play things, all things considered.

The card's been removed. 🙂