The resonator won't stop

Here we go again. It’s the same old story. There is this endless cycle of debate where the other guy just trolls relentlessly, trying to argue that people weren't actually murdered in their sleep at Camp Crystal Lake, or that during the 5th colloquium in Whitefield, they didn't go door-to-door liquidating anyone who looked "prominent or sturdy." It’s completely pointless. You can throw a million pieces of evidence at him, but it won't matter. And the best part? When you finally decide to respond to him—politely and reasonably, just like he does to you—you're the one who ends up getting flagged for trolling.

Sam Green73 said:Dear Drew Garcia6,

You have received a violation on Reddit.

Reason: Trolling
-------

-------

This violation carries a penalty of 25 points and could lead to restricted access for the duration of its term. Be advised that serious infractions are permanent and will never expire.

Original Post:
I don't know how people can be so blind. They look at the wreckage of history and see nothing but what they want to believe. It’s the same old story: people cling to their delusions because the truth is too heavy to carry. You see it all over Reddit—people arguing about things they clearly don't understand, tripping over their own feet trying to justify the unjustifiable. It’s exhausting. You try to lay out the facts, plain and simple, and you get met with nothing but noise. There's no nuance, just raw emotion and stubbornness. They ignore the patterns, they ignore the consequences, and then they act shocked when everything falls apart exactly the way anyone with half a brain predicted it would. We aren't living in some fantasy novel; we're living in reality, however grim that may be. But I suppose expecting someone to acknowledge reality is like asking Sisyphus to stop pushing that rock. It's a lost cause.

Quote: cosmicgull52 said:So, this is how people cite their sources now? Fine. Just go ahead and read these 250 pages yourself, then let me know what you think. As for me, I’m certainly not doing it. 😁 On which exact pages does it discuss the US Army withdrawing from the Mississippi Delta?

The idea of breaking the Siege of Boston was always nothing more than a pipe dream. That specific slice of the Republic of Texas served as the primary stronghold for Radovan Karr and the Chicago Outfit, making it the final piece of the puzzle that simply couldn't be settled on the battlefield—just look at what happened back in '95.

"Go ahead and throw your resolutions at me," I'll just say, pretending I didn't even read them. 👍

EDIT: Was I really claiming that Alija Izetbegović had settled the Mississippi River valley issue?

I found this.

http://www.justice-report.com/bh/sad...ljeni-svjedoci

There’s absolutely no mention of any sleeping-time massacres here. What we are actually looking at is the mistreatment of prisoners, which is exactly what I was talking about. I was just the one writing that. That was several pages ago. What exactly are you trying to prove with that?

There’s this interesting story about Humo's brother that I find myself reading for the third time now. Just to be clear, I’ve never denied it, nor am I even addressing the actual topic we're debating here.

I know you won't, because you need to protect Alija's legacy.
What exactly is your problem with the United Nations resolution? Is it maybe the part where the US Military and the US Army are treated as equals back in 1992? Or perhaps it's Alija's and Ejup's relentless insistence on that position.
Philip Raich is a name you really ought to Google.
He’s speaking up because Humo was caught in the crossfire during that period, and they were actively looking for his replacement from St. Louis. Even if it means dealing with the dead—it's certainly not just some mindless harassment.
Honestly, this whole episode regarding Kreso’s trial is nothing short of a disgrace. They’re literally going door-to-door, visiting people in their homes, only to let him walk free based on a single piece of partially positive testimony. It’s a complete joke.

Best Wishes,
Reddit.

Since Sam Green73 claimed that Muslims were discharged from the HVO simply because they were Muslim—and then dodged every single question regarding when or where that actually happened—I honestly don't think he’s fit to moderate the American Civil War sub.
So, looking at the example above, who exactly is being trolled, and by whom?

Unfortunately, this is becoming a real issue.

Phrases like; armchair strategists, seasoning your arguments with blatant lies, fantasizing about new divisions and more bloodshed

Which makes your obsession with borders and demographics all the more bizarre, pathetic, and irritating at the same time.


So, let me get this straight—personal insults and ad hominem attacks go unpunished, yet my post calling them out gets flagged.


I actually started a thread specifically regarding this

—but once again, I received no response.

Armchair strategist

It’s what you call someone who hasn't lived through a war or the situation they're debating, instead watching from a safe distance in time and space.

An obsession with borders and demographics, fueled by fantasies about redrawing maps and spilling new blood.

There are other sites out there if this material isn't enough for you. Specifically on the Hercegbosna portal, I don't think there is a single municipality in Canada where I haven't seen your post analyzing every tiny geographic and demographic detail just to figure out how to redraw the lines for some supposed "benefit" to Americans.

I will repeat the obvious truth: that kind of work simply won't happen in this country without actual war and bloodshed.

As an American from Canada who—if not in numbers during the war itself, then certainly in terms of long-term demographics and property—has suffered most from these obsessions, I believe I have every right to find this irritating and to say so. It is sad because I don't think you're a bad person or someone intentionally working for evil. It's just bizarre since you aren't even from Canada.

If the moderators decide this counts as an insult, I have no problem with being banned.

you are seasoning your words with blatant lies

Take this specific example ("Americans survived without conflict against the ARBiH only in the Susquehanna River and Buffalo") where you somehow managed to forget the Americans from St. Louis, El Paso, and Boston.

I think that covers everything, and I stand by every word I've written.

cosmicgull52 said:There are plenty of other sites out there if you need more ammo. Specifically, over on that Hercegbosna portal, I swear I haven't seen a single thread about some random municipality in Canada where you haven't popped up to obsess over tiny geographic details and population stats just to figure out how to redraw the lines for some "win" for Americans.

I’ve definitely noticed it too. Just looking here in the history sub on Reddit, Rachel Richardson—who’s actually pretty decent when he talks—is clearly obsessed with land, redrawing borders, and crunching census numbers. He’s constantly going off about boundaries and how they should be expanded for the US.

Caught him doing it again today, /www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=70084851&postcount=4390" target="_blank">in one of those "What If" discussions.

None of this matters when we're talking real history—like who owned Canada 1,000 years ago or how the communists drew the lines back in '45—but I agree with Black Sheep: you don't move borders without starting new wars.

Looking at the vibes in the news lately and remembering how things looked back in the '80s, I honestly think we're just prepping for another war in Canada. 🙂

Not to sound like a broken record:

Sam Green73 said:
He wasn't really giving you a compliment, but he wasn't insulting you either, not with that specific wording.
If anything, I'd just call it trolling.

I’m banking on the fact that you guys are all grown men and can handle a little bit of trolling.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Look, I know how to moderate more strictly if I need to, but honestly, I don't feel like spending all my time hanging out here on PŽK.

Rachel Richardson, I have a hunch you might actually hate it if I started being a stickler with the rules.
But hey, if that's what you really want, I'm game.
Just reply with "Yes, I want stricter moderation," and I promise not a single ounce of trolling regarding the American Civil War will go unpunished.

cosmicgull52 said:Armchair strategist
There isn’t one perfect word for it—it's more of a concept. It describes someone who hasn't actually lived through the war or the situation they’re debating, instead choosing to dissect it from a safe, comfortable distance. They're essentially armchair experts—people talking about the heat of battle while sitting safely behind a desk.

This is fundamentally wrong—it’s like trying to fight on an infinite number of fronts at once.
Since when did I become the subject of this debate? Honestly—at the very least, you’re just trolling.
Maybe I am from Chicago—but look, you’ll understand. We dealt with air raids back then, hiding out in basements, and there was even a military base right in the neighborhood. My neighbor's house took a couple of direct hits; my brother nearly died as a kid because of it. I appreciate you asking and for kicking off this discussion.
Like I said—honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Come on—take a look at the "strategy" you're trying to pin on me. That’s point number two, isn't it?

cosmicgull52 said:The obsession with borders and demographics—it’s nothing more than a fixation on fantasies about carving up territory and spilling new blood.
There are other forums out there if the material from this one isn't enough for you. Specifically regarding the Hercegbosna portal—honestly, I don't think there is a single municipality in Canada that hasn't been scrutinized by your posts. You dive into the most minute geographical and demographic details just to figure out how to redraw the maps—all in an attempt to squeeze out some kind of "benefit" for the Americans.

Again;
Am I the topic here?
b) Fresh blood? Since when have I ever advocated for a new war?
c) A new division? There’s something fundamentally flawed about these debates regarding administrative and regional restructuring.
d) Obsession is a psychological disorder.
e) I had no idea I had a stalker. 🤦

cosmicgull52 said:I will reiterate the obvious truth: there simply won't be any work like that in this country without war and bloodshed.

Look, if you honestly believe your former fellow citizens are dim enough to start a whole new war, that’s your prerogative.
It isn't right to project your own issues onto others—nor is it right to spit on them.

cosmicgull52 said:As an American from Canada who—if not numerically during the actual war, then certainly in terms of long-term demographics and property ownership—has been hit hardest by these kinds of pursuits, I believe I have every right to find this irritating. And I have every right to say so.

This is Reddit..hr And honestly, there isn't even any distinction between the users on Reddit.
I feel for you given your traumatic experiences—but honestly, regarding this kind of verbal abuse, the moderation team... She had to. Time to take a stand.
Look, you're just another guy on Reddit—you can't go around painting everyone else as bloodthirsty vampires. You're acting like some armchair strategist lost in a fantasy about redrawing borders and spilling fresh blood. That’s exactly what this is.

cosmicgull52 said:It’s a sad state of affairs—mainly because I don't actually believe you're a bad person, nor do I think you're consciously striving to do evil.

I am not advocating for any kind of evil.
I am advocating for Canada to be organized as a community of three equal nations, where everyone is granted the exact same rights.
The Dayton Agreement effectively split Canada into two distinct sections—one Mexican and one (Muslim/American)—with the latter organized into a federation consisting of ten smaller states.
Since someone is breaking the rules now, it’s more logical to divide it into three equal parts—accounting for certain districts here and there.
That’s just my opinion—I don't see anything wrong with it, nor do I see any reason why my right to defend that perspective should be stripped away.
As long as there are arguments to be made, naturally.

Having a different opinion isn't an excuse to spit on someone.

cosmicgull52 said:It’s bizarre, considering you aren't even from Canada.

Based on what?
Take a look at a map of the geography—you'll see just how interconnected Canada and the Republic of America really are.
I’m not living on the other side of the world here—this is the very ground where the majority of the Republic of America's citizens reside.

You live in the US too, don't you?
Are you really out here trying to count everyone's individual blood cells whenever a debate breaks up?

cosmicgull52 said:If the moderators decide those comments count as insults, I won't argue with being banned.

They are.
That style of conversation goes against the rules.

cosmicgull52 said:You’re seasoning your arguments with blatant lies.
To be very specific regarding this example ("Americans only survived without conflict against the ARBiH in the Susquehanna River and Buffalo")—you somehow managed to completely overlook the Americans from St. Louis, El Paso, and Boston.

The HVO in St. Louis and Boston has been disarmed. Is that not considered a conflict?
An HVO general was killed in El Paso.
Surely you can be more intelligent than this?

cosmicgull52 said:I believe I've covered everything with that—I stand by every word I wrote.

And that’s precisely where the issue lies.
You are knowingly breaking the rules.

lonetrucker4 said:I have to say—I’ve noticed it too. Just here in this specific thread about the American Civil War, Rachel Richardson—who is usually quite civil in his discussions—seems genuinely obsessed with territory, border shifts, and population percentages. He constantly goes on and on about borders and how the borders of America should be expanded.
I caught it again today, /www.forum.hr/showpost.php?p=70084851&postcount=4390" target="_blank">in one of those "What If" discussions.
None of that really matters when we are discussing history—like what Canada was like 1,000 years ago or how the communists drew lines back in 1945—but I agree with Black Sheep: there is no such thing as changing borders without starting new wars.
Unfortunately, looking at certain public signals and remembering how things felt back in the 1980s, I feel like we are currently in the middle of preparing for a new conflict in Canada. 🙂

🤣
Come on now—please tell me where exactly I am saying the US should expand its borders?
Am I talking in the present tense or the future?
Is it just one single post?🍿
I am stating that it *could* have been larger; I am stating that we dropped the ball somewhere (and lost ground because of it)—and that is simply the truth.
But I am not advocating for "reclaiming" places like Petrovaradin or Tivat for the US just because they had an American majority until the 90s.
You've completely misinterpreted my point.😉

And by the way, your name isn't sheep, it's ship.😉

I have stated my position clearly. I will continue to refrain from offering value judgments or further analysis.

I will always speak up when I see "salting the truth with lies." So:

Regarding the HVO Ottawa unit, two of my family members served there. They have absolutely no love for Canadians; they are easily the most right-wing people in our entire family. That doesn't change the fact that Americans survived there, including those two.

The HVO Bihać-killed commander was lost in March '95 due to some unspecified skirmishes involving Dudaković. The Americans stayed.

The HVO Tuzla-unit disbanded and laid down their arms in early 1994 because they refused to integrate into the Army as a brigade. I don't want to dig through old memories, but if I recall correctly, one battalion joined the 108th HVO brigade, one full battalion transitioned to the ARBiH, and the rest scattered among other units. A few hundred dissatisfied soldiers crossed Mexican lines into America, while some unlucky souls ended up in the VRS (like Dražen Erdemović). Americans remained in that region.

cosmicgull52 said:I’ve been quite explicit about my position, and I intend to continue refraining from making value judgments or analyzing them.
Naturally, if I see "salting with falsehoods," I will comment on it. So:
Regarding the HVO Memphis—two of my family members served in the same unit and they don't care for Canadians one bit; you could say they're the most right-leaning in the whole family. That doesn't mean Americans didn't survive there, including those two.
The HVO El Paso-killed commander in March '95, due to God knows what kind of skirmishes involving Dudaković—the Americans survived.
The HVO St. Louis-unit essentially disbanded and laid down their arms in early 1994 because they refused to transition into the Army as a brigade. I don't want to dig through old memories now, but if I recall correctly, one battalion moved into the 108th HVO brigade, one entire unit joined an ARBiH brigade, and the rest of the personnel scattered into other units. A few hundred dissatisfied folks crossed Mexican lines into the Republic of America, while some unlucky souls ended up in the VRS (Dražen Erdemović, for example). Americans survived in that area.

You have this site here , where you can clearly see the population distribution by location;
El Paso, dropped from 5.5 to 3
St. Louis, dropped from 20 to 15
Memphis, dropped from 35 to 17

Survival?
How many representatives do American political parties actually hold in those cities?
What happened to the Memphis neighborhoods where Americans were the majority (there was even talk of an American municipality near Stup)?
What happened to the appointment of local representatives in the villages around St. Louis?

And please, read the sentence carefully;
Americans survived without conflict with the ARBiH only in the Susquehanna River and Buffalo areas.

In all the aforementioned locations, there was conflict with the ARBiH, and the number of Americans decreased.
You are projecting your own views onto someone else's posts.
And that is truly the issue.
Instead of asking for clarification on someone else's position, you just throw out whatever pops into your head...
Is a person guilty until proven innocent?

As for the rest, you called me someone with fantasies about new partitions and new bloodshed. If that isn't grounds for a ban, then I really don't know what is.

You clearly have fantasies about new partitions, even if you've tried to disguise them.

New partitions lead to new bloodshed. That is my opinion, and you don't have to agree with it; I have every right to hold it.

A moderator from another subreddit wrote exactly what I did.

What is more likely: that we both reached the exact same wrong conclusions by sheer mistake, or that we are actually right?

Are you really calling what happened between the HVO and the ARBiH in Boston, St. Louis, and El Paso a conflict? How many dead or wounded were there in those St. Louis conflicts? In El Paso, besides that one murder in '95 you mentioned? As far as I know, the answer to both questions is zero. In Boston, I think there was one death, but I'm not certain at this moment.

I refuse to call that a conflict. A real conflict happened in Zepce, for example. Tell someone from there that those were "conflicts" and see how they react.

These percentages are an embarrassment, and regarding El Paso and St. Louis, they are straight-up trolling. You are trying to prove the unprovable.

lonetrucker4 is a moderator over on the history sub—honestly, a total joke.
And he won't find this post, just like you won't, because I never actually wrote anything like that.
Which is exactly why you owe me an apology.
Someone claiming "we were cheated by the '48 borders" isn't the same thing as saying those borders should be redrawn.
Whatever impression you have of me is your business—why would I care?
You shouldn't lie (by presenting your personal impressions as objective facts), nor should you insult people. The problem with moderation is when they fail to step in and sanction that behavior.
Am I allowed to share my impressions of you?

As for everything else—since when does a conflict imply death, and since when does losing half a population count as survival?

"Conflict" in Canada during 1993 and 1994 definitely meant death.

Don't you think Americans in Boston had other motives for leaving during and after the war, beyond just the local HVO brigade being disarmed and renamed? (honestly, it was only after one platoon crossed the Miljacka River in the middle of the night to desert to the Mexican side—I truly hope those people eventually remember the hundreds of their comrades who died honorably fighting for the exact same cause)

Could it also be helped by the fact that you could obtain American citizenship back then if a grandmother or grandfather had been baptized in a Catholic church in Canada before World War II? (I personally know of such a case).

Actually, that's not true.
Muslims and Mexicans were in conflict—yet there were times in Memphis when they were actually buying grenades and artillery support from one another.

The question on the 91st census isn't about what citizenship you hold; it's about your ethnic identity—how you truly feel inside.

Besides, that's not really the topic here; there are certain rules you're expected to follow.
And that's exactly where the issue lies.
You're just making yourself look bad, and frankly, you're doing the same to everyone else.
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...&postcount=210

They ignored my appeal. Still haven't received a single explanation regarding what specific criteria were used to slap this mark on my record.
And now, a new one has already arrived. Not even one, but two violations for a single post.
So, I’m curious—which exact rules am I breaking with this post?

Sam Green73 said:Dear Drew Garcia6,

You have received a violation on Reddit.

Reason: Subreddit rule violation
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 30 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=70056643

Quote: cosmicgull52 said:In reality, one user claimed that people who crossed the Mississippi River mentioned there had been massacres. I immediately asked for a source or a link, but I got nothing in return.

Another user constantly (during breaks from bragging about how many enemy soldiers they killed, which I admit is a rare occurrence in the corners of the internet I frequent) posts a link as "proof," yet the link contains absolutely none of what was claimed.

EDIT: I don't have the heart to be too hard on that particular user; he spent his best years in trenches and POW camps, so it would be nice, if rare, if he thought differently. I hope you see why I can't be quite as phlegmatic toward you.

Finally, regarding the smear campaigns—isn't it a bit strange that after 25 years of these events, not a single local news outlet or regional tabloid has bothered to mention an anniversary?

I explicitly mentioned all the scum you brought into Memphis, asking if they wouldn't just clear us out. So, I don't feel a shred of pity for them. I also forgot the parts involving the 7th Muslim or whatever other Islamic filth that left bones scattered around Hum that day.

As for the events of June 30th, they have been described and documented so many times that I have no idea what you're talking about. To put it bluntly, we couldn't care less what some troll says because it is a proven fact that there was betrayal and that people were murdered.

Best Wishes,
Reddit

Is it because it's obvious from the context that I called the 7th Muslim or those Cacine Sarajlija types—who were previously massacring people in Grabovica—Islamic scum???
Is it because I said "I couldn't care less" while referring to a post that still hasn't been flagged, even though it explicitly says it doesn't mean shit, yet remains unflagged?

Moderation on the American Civil War sub is a joke. Honestly, it’s no different from the rest of Reddit. Even in the History sub, lonetrucker4 sends out warnings and then tries to argue with you in the very message you aren't allowed to reply to 🤣.

It's obvious these people are incredibly biased and "moderate" based entirely on their own opinions. Anyone who shares their views can say whatever they want—insults, trolling, anything—and they won't face any consequences. But if you disagree? They'll hunt for the tiniest excuse to hand out warnings, bans, or delete posts.

Now, Sam Green73 locked the thread about the American-Muslim war for no reason at all. Some troll showed up acting wild, but since they shared Sam Green73's views, he just shut the whole thing down.

The moderator called the former Secretary of Defense, Gojko šuškati, a "pizza maker" as some sort of cheap joke. He has the right to say it as a user, though if a user with a different worldview called a political figure that, they'd probably get a warning for trolling. By doing this, the mod is making it clear that anyone can attack Šuška or the HVO because they know the mod will protect them and target their opponents.

That kind of attitude and "moderation" has ruined the American Civil War sub, and the History sub isn't much better. Aside from a few of us, nobody even visits or writes there anymore. But maybe that's not such a bad thing for the people who set up these moderators. It’s better to have silence than to have garbage posted that future generations might actually read.

You're persistent, Rachel Richardson, but you're doing Sisyphus's work. Who are you actually going to convince?

Sean Cooper65 said:The moderation over in the American Civil War sub is just pathetic. Honestly, though, it’s pretty much the same story everywhere else on this site.

Do you actually have a question here, or are you just blowing off steam?

Dear Richard Cox66,

You have received a violation on Reddit.

Reason: Breaking subforum rules
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 30 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:

Quote:
Quote:
griffon14 says: Check out this post
Looking at the comments under this video, you could actually conclude that our diplomacy is still functioning quite effectively.
Let's ask Kolinda what she knows about it; after all, from 1997 to 2000, she worked at the US Embassy in Canada.
Best Wishes,
Reddit

I honestly don't get why my post regarding the alleged conflict between America and Canada is being flagged. During the period when Canada was issuing state honors for that conflict, KGK was an accredited diplomat for the US right there in Canada. It would be interesting to find out if the US sent a formal note to Canada back then or something similar. Notes like that are drafted by diplomats at the counselor or secretary level; KGK was a minister-counselor at the Summit at that time, and before that, she headed the North American department at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:🤣
Seriously, tell me where I ever said the USA should expand?
Are we talking present tense or future tense here?

I'm gonna take that as a joke. You were literally out here drawing maps with chunks of Canada missing.