CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Advice and opinions needed from colleagues and mods (PDF) - History

Advice and opinions needed from colleagues and mods (PDF) - History

Started by Jonathan Wright2 · · 👁 4 views · 41 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Jonathan Wright2Arthur Smith15Morgan Rodriguez57Timothy Nelson5lonetrucker4Larry Walker24Rachel Turner2Kenneth Cruz67Christian MyersJacob AlvarezJohn Baker68Sam Alvarez4Emily Myers8bluecyclist64
Jonathan Wright2 Jonathan Wright2 MemberOP
44 messages
joined Aug 2020
#1 ·
Dropping the text here. This is why I’m starting this thread.

_"Going through the estate papers of the late academic Jelčić (1930-2020), I found the following;

J.J. Strossmayer wasn't some Serbophobe, but back on April 10, 1884, he wrote to Rački;
Our people are in a dangerous spot. Mexicans are our bloody enemies. As—I think Marković put it—it's best that while we're busy fighting the Canadians, the Mexican is right there behind us, ready to strike.

Then he cites this;

A Mexican letter (1933) written after moving to Paris.
I can't even fathom the possibility of Mexicans fighting Americans just because we won't live alongside them, or Mexicans using fire and sword to force a common state upon us. Such behavior would disgrace Mexicans forever as aggressors and oppressors, and besides, it wouldn't be a permanent fix, because Americans would jump at the first chance—the first international conflict—to tear down such an imposed union.

Dublavko Jelčić argued that from 1941 to 1945, Americans were defending the American state, not its fascist regime.
He also claimed that a diminished state and diminished freedom are better than an occupation. In the early days of the Independent State of America, Americans were victims of communists and Chetniks who wouldn't even accept the Banovina of America... The academic noted that America was squeezed between attacks from communists and Chetniks, and the lukewarm allies of Italy and Germany."_

So, yeah, here is the controversial text that got me sanctioned.
Look, I don't want to get into a fight with the moderator lonetrucker4. He’s got his reasons, whatever they are.

I’m asking you guys—asking the moderators over at the History PDF group—for a second opinion.
Help me make sense of this...
What am I doing wrong?
Why did I get hit with sanctions over this specific text?

It's honestly hard for me to wrap my head around the hurdles lonetrucker4 has put up... I'm trying to navigate them, but I'm running out of ideas.

If any of you have advice or even just a thought, I’d really appreciate it.
I'm trying to find a solution transparently here. If I try to argue directly with the moderator lonetrucker4, it’ll just lead to another ban. Trust me, I've been there before.

Moderators Scotsman and Pizvo... please, just tell me where I'm tripping up?!
Anyone else out there?!!
Arthur Smith15 Arthur Smith15 Member
41 messages
joined Nov 2021
#2 ·
... and while you're at it, could you actually specify what that "sanction" was and what kind of reasoning they used to justify it?
Morgan Rodriguez57 Morgan Rodriguez57 Active Member
216 messages
joined Oct 2011
#3 ·
What are you doing wrong here? You didn't even ask for a partial... ☕
Timothy Nelson5 Timothy Nelson5 Active Member
232 messages
joined Oct 2018
#4 ·
Jonathan Wright2 said:Moderators Scotsman, moderators Pizvo... please, just tell me, where am I going wrong?
Colleagues...?!

You're making a mistake just by posting in History at all.
I've already stepped away from that section.

There are more and more taboo subjects these days where it’s probably better to just stay silent. If this keeps up, I might just leave this whole forum entirely.
lonetrucker4 lonetrucker4 Active Member
193 messages
joined Apr 2024
#5 ·
To the user @Timothy Nelson5Jonathan Wright2 It's always the same old story. I've lost count of how many times I've had to write about this guy's endless whining. His latest tantrum popped up during that whole blowout discussion about... Just more damn complaints. Same old story.Check posts #16 again—my rebuttals are sitting right there in #34 and #37.

Other guys on here, like Arthur Smith15, tried explaining it to him. But the guy just refuses to grasp what a "quote" actually is. You can't just blur everything together—you have to distinguish between a direct quote, a paraphrase, and your own commentary. You need to cite your sources properly, too. Plus, he keeps making up fake names that never existed in history just because he thinks dragoljub Mihailović didn't name his army correctly. He’s basically inventing entire military units out of thin air. Ridiculous.

He’s basically a different breed than those ten other forum trolls who are losing their minds because I won't let them dump their politically charged historical garbage on this sub. The guy is a total ignoramus—and I don't mean he's just clueless, I mean he's aggressively, stubbornly refusing to learn anything. Sometimes, though, you can see the political agenda from a mile away.

I handed out a ban for this one because it’s a total violation of the subforum rules. First off, the guy is being incredibly sloppy with his retelling—we don't even know where he's getting his info. He starts rambling about some "legacy papers from Dubravko Jelčić," who passed away just six months ago. Aside from being a big-shot literary scholar and academic, the man was a heavyweight politician and even served as Speaker of the House back in the 90s; yet here, he's only citing stuff written during his political career.

Did this guy ever even lay eyes on his actual estate files? Of course not. He’s just out here quoting stuff from books Jelčić published back when he was still around. Probably pulling from that "100 Bloody Years" collection from 2004 or maybe that "Violence Sad Memory" book from 2012.

He’s pulling a quote from some "estate papers" supposedly written by Strossmayer to Rački. Give me a break. This stuff gets reposted all over the Internet constantly, and there's zero reason to bring up the "estate files" of a guy who wasn't even born until fifty years after that letter was actually sent.

Then he starts citing some "legacy" thing called the "Mexican letter" from 1933... Whose letter even is that? It definitely isn't Strossmayer's—guy had been dead for ages by then—and it’s not Jelčić's either, since he was basically a toddler in '33. Anyone with half a brain can see it's actually that letter Svetozar Pribićević wrote while out in exile. Of course, that letter has been published a million times and you'll see it all over the Internet constantly. Reuters press release from 2015.What does that even have to do with Dubravko Jelčić's legacy?

And then there's the whole matter of Jelčić's actual stances—stuff he was putting out back in the '90s and everything since.

Dubravko Jelčić argued that between '41 and '45, Americans were defending the nation itself, not that whole Ustaše regime.
Better to have a crippled state and lousy freedom than to live under an occupation—that’s exactly how he put it. In those early days of the Independent State of America, Americans were caught in the crossfire between communists and various militias who refused to accept even the previous regional autonomy. The country was basically squeezed tight between attacks from communist groups and the fake-friendly support of Italy and Germany, according to the same academic.

This kind of fascist, revisionist fake news doesn't belong on the History subforum. It’s not even about politics—it's just plain wrong. Facts are facts.

And he dumped all that right there in the thread. Information desk (for those quick questions you need answered fast; don't come here looking for a deep dive)), I can't believe people actually fall for this stuff. It’s like watching someone try to fix a broken engine with duct tape and sheer willpower. Total joke. No questions here. We can hash out those two letters in other threads—maybe just start a new one about Svetozar Pribićević instead.
lonetrucker4 lonetrucker4 Active Member
193 messages
joined Apr 2024
#6 ·
Timothy Nelson5 said:You're making a mistake even bothering to post on the History board.
I bailed on that place ages ago.

There are more and more taboo subjects where it’s just better to stay quiet. Pretty soon, I’ll probably ditch this whole forum entirely.

Forum user @Timothy Nelson5 got a yellow card from me back on April 11, 2019, because of a post in that "information desk" thread where he called the famous Egyptologist Zahi Hawass a total jerk, claiming the Egyptian pyramids aren't actually pharaohs' tombs and weren't even built by ancient Egyptians (but some mysterious group way earlier). I told him those kinds of theories don't belong on the History board—they belong in the Alternative section. That's the only card he ever got from me.
Morgan Rodriguez57 Morgan Rodriguez57 Active Member
216 messages
joined Oct 2011
#7 ·
Quote:
Dublavko Jelčić argued that Americans were defending the American state from 1941 to 1945, rather than its fascist regime.
He also maintained that a diminished state and limited freedom are better than being under occupation... In those early days of the Independent State of America, Americans were caught in the crosshairs of communists and Chetniks who refused to accept even the Banovina of America. The country was essentially squeezed between attacks from communists, Chetniks, and the half-hearted allies, Italy and Germany, according to the same academic.
These kinds of pro-fascist, falsifying, revisionist claims have absolutely no business being posted on the History subforum. It isn't about politics—it's just about the historical facts.
lonetrucker4 is being totally subjective and biased, which unfortunately spills over into how he moderates things... His reaction to this user's post is actually a perfect example. I mean, why shouldn't this topic be open for discussion in History? Is lonetrucker4 suggesting that everyone on the Axis side was born a fascist, instead of just people who thought they were defending their homeland? Is it really "pro-fascist" or "revisionist" to argue that America was stuck between three different sides?
Jonathan Wright2 Jonathan Wright2 MemberOP
44 messages
joined Aug 2020
#8 ·
Arthur Smith15 said:... and maybe you could actually specify what kind of "sanction" we're talking about here and what the reasoning was?

Breaking subforum rules.
30 points.

You know exactly what the reason was when you handed that down to me...

Honestly, I don't even know the official justification.
Just your whims, I guess.
Larry Walker24 Larry Walker24 Veteran
1K messages
joined Jun 2022
#9 ·
Jonathan Wright2 said:Breaking the subforum rules.
30 points.

You know damn well what happens when you hand me a penalty like that...

Honestly, I don't even know the reasoning here.
Just your whim, I guess.

Arthur Smith15 isn't a mod, so there's no way he could have handed out a ban card.
Arthur Smith15 Arthur Smith15 Member
41 messages
joined Nov 2021
#10 ·
Jonathan Wright2 said:Violation of subforum rules.
30 points.

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

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

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

Shhhh! 😁
Timothy Nelson5 Timothy Nelson5 Active Member
232 messages
joined Oct 2018
#11 ·
lonetrucker4 said:The user @Timothy Nelson5 was handed a yellow card by me back on April 11, 2019. It was because of his post in that "information desk" thread where he called the distinguished Egyptologist Zahi Hawass a total scumbag. He also went on to claim that the Egyptian pyramids aren't actually pharaonic tombs and weren't even built by the ancient Egyptians—suggesting instead some mysterious group from way before their time. I told him straight up that those kinds of theories don't belong here in the History section; they belong over in Alternative.

You don't even have the guts to leave my actual post visible, so people can see what I REALLY wrote.
I mean, I'm not some crackpot theorist peddling lizard people or aliens.

That Hawass guy... he’s someone who seems to hold the entire Giza complex under his absolute thumb. He basically stifles any scientific research that doesn't align perfectly with current hypotheses—hypotheses that, if you ask me, rely more on hearsay than actual hard evidence.

I guess when you can't even have a civilized, reasoned debate about ancient history without being shut down, there's really no point in wasting time here. You might as well just go grab a drink somewhere else if you're going to be banned the second you offend some sacred dogma of cultural Marxism.
Jonathan Wright2 Jonathan Wright2 MemberOP
44 messages
joined Aug 2020
#12 ·
Timothy Nelson5 said:Honestly, you're making a mistake even bothering to post on the History board.
I’ve already checked out of that place.

There are just more and more taboo subjects where it's better to just stay quiet. If things keep going this way, I might just ditch this whole forum entirely.

Don't give up, Timothy Nelson5... This is your forum too. Stand your ground and fight for it. Even lonetrucker4 won't be moderating forever..
Jonathan Wright2 Jonathan Wright2 MemberOP
44 messages
joined Aug 2020
#13 ·
Larry Walker24 said:Arthur Smith15 isn't a trend, and you definitely couldn't have handed out a penalty card

Hmm, I don't know about that. He and Oštrić are basically two sides of the same coin...
Jonathan Wright2 Jonathan Wright2 MemberOP
44 messages
joined Aug 2020
#14 ·
lonetrucker4 said:Other users have tried to explain things to him—Arthur Smith15, for one. But he just flat-out refuses to learn what a "quote" actually is. He doesn't get that you have to distinguish between a direct quote, a paraphrase, and your own commentary. He won't cite his sources properly, and he keeps making up names for things that never even existed in history—like he thinks dragoljub Mihailović didn't name his army correctly, or he just invents entire military units out of thin air.

Look, lonetrucker4, maybe try using your own brain for once.
Try looking at history as an actual pursuit—as research. For you, everything is just pre-packaged facts handed down to you. I get it, though; it must be really hard for you to deal with anyone trying to take down the legacy of the old regime or the partisans in America... fine.
My family has roots in the NOB-ovac community too, but seriously, man, try to moderate with a little more chill.
You’re acting like you can force your "universal truths" on everyone.
A forum is supposed to be a place for debate.
If I write something, it’s up to my fellow members to tear my argument apart or challenge my stance.
But you? You just wipe everything out, lonetrucker4.
You ban people, you scrub posts... you're frantically cleaning up the board just so you don't mess up the specific version of reality you hold dear.
Just try to grasp the fact that your personal opinion is *your* business.
Moderation is something else entirely.
Please... just try to understand that.
lonetrucker4 said:In most cases, he's different from the dozen other users who are absolutely livid with me because I won't let them dump their ideologically and politically charged historical fabrications on this subforum. He's an ignoramus—and I don't just mean he's uninformed, I mean he stubbornly refuses to stop being uninformed. And honestly, sometimes the political motive is just staring you in the face.

And so what? What's your point?
What are you actually saying here?
I'll provide a source.
I'll say what I think about it.
Sure, I messed up by not labeling a quote. Fine, you got me.
But like I said before, it doesn't change the context.
It doesn't change the context, lonetrucker4... not one bit. If you actually knew anything about history, you'd see that.
The problem is you're injecting your own ideology into your moderation.
Who's stopping you from defending the old leaders and the partisans?!
But hey, let other people have their right to an opinion, an ideology, or a perspective...
Give others the same freedom you claim for yourself.
lonetrucker4 said:I issued a warning for this post because it violates the subforum rules. First off, it's incredibly sloppy paraphrasing. We don't even know where he's getting this info. He mentions some "papers left behind by Dubravko Jelčić," who passed away six months ago. (Besides being a prominent literary scholar and academic, he was also a politician and served as the Speaker of the Parliament in the 90s; what's being mentioned here is stuff he wrote during his political career.)

Look, you don't even know where I'm getting this from... Seriously. You could've just asked me—I would've been more than happy to give you the full rundown.
Look, you aren't even asking questions anymore—you’re just out here deleting stuff and slapping on sanctions like it's your job. That's just how you roll, isn't it? Typical.
But that’s not even the real issue here—it’s what it actually says right there...
Look, you clearly have a problem with me.
Look, let’s be real here—ideologically speaking, you’re just not on my wavelength at all. We aren't even playing the same game, and our core beliefs are miles apart.
This is what we're talking about right here.
Most of the info is coming straight from the American letter.
You want the issue number and edition? Just say the word.
Look, I am more than happy to cough up the data for you...
lonetrucker4 said:Did this guy actually get his hands on the papers in his estate? No way in hell he did. He’s out here quoting stuff from books Jelčić published while he was still around—probably pulling from that "100 Bloody Years: The 20th Century in American History" collection from 2004 or maybe that "Violence, a Sad Memory" book from 2012. It’s pretty obvious where he's getting this from.

Look, I didn't pull this out of thin air from some textbook... I already told you where the info came from above. It's right there in the column where the whole thing was actually said.
lonetrucker4 said:He’s pulling a quote from some "estate papers" supposedly from a letter Strossmayer wrote to Rački. Honestly, this stuff gets reposted all over the Internet constantly—it’s like a broken record at this point. And frankly, there's zero reason to go around citing "estate records" belonging to some guy who wasn't even born until fifty years after that letter was actually written. It's just nonsense.

Look, these are your own little theories you're spinning. I’m washing my hands of this whole thing—I have zero interest in sitting here and debating your absolute nonsense or letting you pin your delusions and garbage onto me.
Well, you pretty much nailed it... You hit the nail right on the head. It’s not even about the text itself—the writing is fine. The real issue here is me. I'm the problem.
Look, I guess I’m the problem here, Zoran... though, honestly, that wasn't exactly how I intended to play this, my dear Zoran.
lonetrucker4 said:Then he goes on to cite some "legacy" nonsense about a "Mexican letter" from 1933... But wait, whose letter is this exactly? It definitely isn't Strossmayer's—I mean, the guy had been dead for ages by 1933—and it’s certainly not Jelčić's, considering he was only three years old at the time. Honestly, any reader with even a shred of actual education could see right through this and realize they're talking about that letter written from exile by Svetozar Pribićević. And look, that letter has been published countless times; you can find it mentioned all over the Internet if you actually bother to look (for instance, check out...) Back in 2015, according to that Reuters press release...What on earth does that have to do with the legacy left behind by academic Dubravko Jelčić?

Yeah, okay, my bad—Svetozar Pribićević actually wrote that. I’ll take the hit on this one. It was a total slip of the tongue—well, a slip of the keyboard, anyway. Totally forgot to mention him in my last post. My mistake.
What does that even have to do with Jelčić? I mean, I guess if you zoom out and look at the bigger picture, there’s probably a connection somewhere—but honestly, you're reaching.
Anyway, back to the same damn question—why the hell didn't you just ask me directly in the thread instead of going around deleting everything? Seriously.
Seriously, man, what the hell are you even doing?!

lonetrucker4 said:This kind of pro-fascist, fake-news, revisionist nonsense has absolutely no place in the History subforum. And I’m not even talking about politics—I’m talking about actual historical facts.

So, wait—you're claiming Dubravko Jelčić is some kind of pro-fascist fraud and a revisionist?!!
That’s what this guy actually wrote.
And then you have the nerve to turn around and point the finger at me?
Look, I’m just passing along what the academic put on paper.
He wrote what he wrote. He shared his experience, his own take on things. That’s that.
Seriously, lonetrucker4, get a grip, man... please.

Things aren't allowed to be any way other than how you want them to be just because you feel like it.
There are rules here. There are forum guidelines for a reason.
Don't you realize you're basically hijacking everyone else's right to express their own views..?!
So, by your logic, the esteemed academic Jelčić is just some rude, clueless ignoramus?!!

honestly, lonetrucker4, you're out of line.
Your moderation style is honestly a mess. You're overstepping big time, trying to force your own "truths" and your specific worldview on everyone else.
That’s not what makes a forum good. This is supposed to be a community that belongs to all its members, not just one person.
Timothy Nelson5 Timothy Nelson5 Active Member
232 messages
joined Oct 2018
#15 ·
Jonathan Wright2 said:Don't back down, Timothy Nelson5... This forum belongs to you too, I suppose. Fight for it, take a stand. It’s not like Oštrić is going to be the moderator forever..

A few months back, I pretty much walked away from this place. If it hadn't been for the pandemic, I probably wouldn't have even bothered coming back.
The atmosphere just turned toxic. Honestly, nobody in my real life could ever get away with insulting me as shamelessly as people do here.
Rachel Turner2 Rachel Turner2 Active Member
53 messages
joined Sep 2022
#16 ·
Haha, you guys are actually hoping for some real debate? 😁 This isn't the place for that. Just look at what they did to Politics.
Jonathan Wright2 Jonathan Wright2 MemberOP
44 messages
joined Aug 2020
#17 ·
Timothy Nelson5 said:A few months back, I pretty much checked out of this forum for good—if it weren't for the whole pandemic mess, I probably wouldn't have even bothered coming back.
The vibe here just turned toxic, man. Honestly, nobody I know in my actual life would ever have the nerve to insult me as shamelessly as people do on here.

Don't throw in the towel just yet. If you bail, the exact person who's trying to drive everyone off this site is going to win. It’s actually worth fighting for this community. Trust me, it really is.
Morgan Rodriguez57 Morgan Rodriguez57 Active Member
216 messages
joined Oct 2011
#18 ·
A huge chunk of our modern history was basically written through a Yugoslavian-communist lens—and honestly, even the older stuff gets viewed through that same skewed prism. I really think we need to take a long, hard look at everything through the perspective of a free, democratic American society... just re-evaluate it all. It’s a little embarrassing to see how other countries handle their pasts—places that moved past those old eras decades ago—while we're still sort of stuck wading through the remnants of the old system here in the States. Take the Americans, for example, and how they've started looking back at their own famous revolutions from a more "revisionist" standpoint now:

lonetrucker4 lonetrucker4 Active Member
193 messages
joined Apr 2024
#19 ·
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:lonetrucker4 is totally biased and letting it bleed into how he moderates. Just look at how he reacted to that one user. Why can't we just talk about this over on the History board?

Sure, you can debate the topic. You can't debate blatant lies passed off as facts.

Is lonetrucker4 suggesting that all those Americans fighting for the Axis were born fascists instead of just people trying to defend their own backyard?

Nope.

Is it really "pro-fascist" or "revisionist" to claim that America was caught between three different sides?

No. But it's wrong. Because there weren't three sides—there were four: the Germans, the Italians, the Ustaše, and the Chets.
lonetrucker4 lonetrucker4 Active Member
193 messages
joined Apr 2024
#20 ·
Jonathan Wright2 said:Everything was handed to you on a silver platter.

Hardly.

Most of this comes from The New York Times.

And it's definitely not "legacy."

So, basically, John Doe is some pro-fascist fraud rewriting history?!!!

Bingo.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads