History Discussion

gentlestag15 said:Sure, it’s easy to justify everything when you’re sitting in a position of power.
Like, imagine someone writes "you look great."
That could be trolling, a sarcastic insult, sexism—even if there are beautiful people out there, by saying that, you're implying everyone else is ugly, which has nothing to do with the topic, etc., etc.
And you look at those explanations and think, "Yeah, Smith is right."
But you fail to notice that someone previously wrote "you look like a dog," and he didn't give them a warning card, but instead gave a massive penalty for a simple remark like "you look great."

Here’s an example where pure Nazi showmanship and racism are tolerated; the only reason I got cards or even a ban was because I commented on the moderation work—basically, their laziness regarding the rules.



Just a few quotes from posts that weren't penalized, which, aside from the Nazi showmanship, I consider insults since I'm from that region.
And why does he allow this? Because he's full of his own prejudices and chauvinistic thinking.
Go ahead, write something like those posts below against Mexicans or Canadians, and you won't lose 500 points for hate speech.

The mountain folk are good people. Just like everyone else.

They're just backward and primitive. That's because they were isolated in the mountains for so long, far away

from the main roads and the flow of civilization.

Those mountain types are definitely unique...

It's not just killing; it's the butchering, the torture, the mutilation... Destroying dignity... Killing a living soul... A hatred that is purely primitive, brutal, stupid, dim-witted, dark, cursed, and wretched...

Moonshine, brothers, a semi-literate bunch of people, a knife, and some idea of how to kill someone in the most savage way possible.

Coastal folks of all faiths, highlanders of all faiths, Mexicans of all faiths, mountain Albanians of all faiths...

The highest caliber of people in the world,
top-tier war criminals in every conflict,
world-class drug smugglers, Pink Panthers and the like...
Top-notch peddlers of every kind of bullshit.

The Turks basically raised the Dinaroide types just to be thieves and criminals working for the Ottoman Empire.

I’d actually agree with BolajiBade that those guys are total amateurs when it comes to killing compared to Germanic peoples.
It’s the same story across the board—they’re worse at warfare, worse at killing, worse at economics, state organization, pretty much everything. Physically, they lack the build for real labor (mostly ectomorph types) and they’re intellectually lacking too (just look at the IQ scores in North American countries versus Northwestern Europe). A genetic dead end.

Good grief, you can read absolutely anything on the internet these days.

Honestly, you guys really need to get out more. Go touch some grass. Sit under a tree, take a breather, and actually think for a second. Then come back home.

lonetrucker4 said:That’s the easiest example of you trying to play semantics with people's names. You wouldn't even get a yellow card for just that. I already pointed out that every decent book calls him Stalin. Sure, it’s not technically wrong, but it just confuses the reader.

But then you went and wrote that Koča Popović is "more accurately Kosta Pop." 😵 And out of nowhere, you changed Ivo Frol to Ivan. All in one single post.

Your post:

My post where I point out all the sloppy mistakes, the vagueness, and the pure guesswork:

And this isn't the first time you've written something this half-baked and "creative." You've complained about it a million times too.

Can I just point out that ZO uses the term "Inter-net" instead of the standard word?
Why the hell does he do that?!

I switch between both terms. Using the translated version is totally normal usage.

In the same thread, people actually had to explain the difference between a DC-3 and a DC-10 to you. That's an easy mistake to make once, but you're making piles of them constantly—it doesn't match those massive ambitions of yours.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

...

Stalin's birth name was Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili
....

This is on the same level as saying it's a mistake to call Tito "Josip Broz."

Jack Cook7 said:Look, I am a useful idiot. I’ve literally said that dozens of times. You decide if you are one or not.

lonetrucker4 is also a useful idiot, just doing his job, and honestly, he does it pretty well in my book. And yeah, lonetrucker4 has his own specific agenda when it comes to Canada topics. That's just the price you pay for his "free" work.

Jack Cook7 said:Perception is everything, isn't it? I mean, look at the folks up there claiming that even though my little guy was kicked off the entire Politics section basically two years ago, he's still running the show—and to top it off, they’re calling him a Russophile. Please. As if I'd ever hand the Russians anything on a silver platter.🤣

lonetrucker4 is a biased moderator when it comes to threads about Mexico or the Homeland War in Canada, and that's exactly what I was talking about.

But man, when I look at the crowd trashing him—you know, the ones going, "Oh, they only found 500 bodies at Auschwitz"—my take is simple and singular: Zoran, you've got my full support, you're doing a great job. Forum.hr/History is actually becoming a legit source of info thanks to how you moderate.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

That part is obvious—though, honestly, it could probably use a bit more balance.

Jonathan Wright2 said:The upside about lonetrucker4 is definitely his dedication—the guy is relentless when it comes to digging through those PDFs.
He’s got an insane amount of knowledge and really knows his stuff.

The real issue is how he forces his own ideology down everyone's throats. He cuts off discussions just when they actually start getting interesting, and he keeps driving members away with constant threats and sanctions. It feels like he’s always pushing his own personal rules as if they’re the actual laws of the forum.

Given all that, threatening the community is pretty much a guarantee.
We aren't seeing any new blood, the regulars are thinning out, and a lot of the old-timers were chased off specifically because of the ruthless approach that ZO (lonetrucker4) insists on using.

rustydrifter10 is in a massive bind here, and she knows it.
She knows lonetrucker4 understands history, but she also clearly sees that the whole thing is spiraling out of control...

It would be a lot more enjoyable if he spent less time obsessing over ideology and more time actually moderating.

Christian Myers said:He does his job so well that he attracts a massive amount of criticism and backlash. It actually reminds me of our own politicians whenever they start bragging about themselves. ☕

I have a brilliant idea.
If anyone is interested in getting a real sense of how the moderation is being handled—let's just open a public poll.
So, we’ll just have to wait and see how good someone actually is.

And let everyone see exactly how they voted. 😉

Timothy Nelson5 said:lonetrucker4,
Look, I’m asking you one more time—please just stop insulting me with these little insinuations.

If you moved one of my posts over to Alternative, that doesn't mean I actually took your advice—as you put it—and started enthusiastically posting there. Not exactly. Because I'm not. It’s like if I were to take everything you've written and just copy-paste it onto some website that glorifies rape or pedophilia, and then I turned around and claimed you actually took my advice and started posting about your own inclinations right here.
Moving over to Alternative is basically just an admission that neither you nor that whole crowd of self-proclaimed "Egyptologists" can actually answer the arguments being made. It’s a retreat, I guess. Maybe it's just easier to hide when there's no comeback left.
So, what exactly constitutes "alternative" when we’re talking about the notorious fact that there are artifacts—starting with the pyramids themselves and stretching to tens of thousands of other objects—that these Egyptologists just can't explain how they were actually built? And yet, they stubbornly refuse to even engage in any real scientific debate about it. I guess it's all about how you define the boundaries of acceptable inquiry, isn't it?

So, what exactly makes these people scientists? I mean, really. It’s a question that keeps popping up, isn't it? I guess you have to wonder about the actual substance behind the title. Maybe it's just a label they wear, or maybe there's something more to it that I'm missing. I don't know. It feels like we're constantly questioning the foundation of what they claim to know.

I can't speak for all of Forum.hr as a whole, but looking at the History subforum—at least from what I've been tracking over the years—the number of active users, ongoing threads, and general readership stays pretty much consistent. You get people dropping off and others popping up to take their place. It’s just the way things go, I guess. A normal cycle.

It’s not just about History, really. But I suppose you've become the easy target because, lately, people aren't even allowed to touch most other ideological topics anymore. You just get picked on because those conversations are off-limits now.

The moderation team has completely abandoned its primary purpose. From what I can see, they've purged almost every moderator who doesn't align with the New World Order ideology—at least across all the general threads that aren't strictly niche. It’s created this massive echo chamber effect. An ideological bubble, basically.
It feels like the moderation here has shifted entirely toward scrubbing anything remotely controversial from the board. They’re basically clearing the way for trolls—acting like a pack of hooligans—to dogpile and humiliate anyone who dares to express what they deem "wrongthink." Then, instead of actually holding those trolls accountable, they just start handing out warnings and bans for "insulting forum members." It's a bit backwards, I guess. Maybe that's just how it works now.

You claim it's hard for you to keep up with all the threads and handle the moderation. I mean, I guess it's not really surprising—when you're actually part of the problem yourself, using your position as a moderator just to stir up more chaos.
I still can't quite wrap my head around that whole business with the cardboard regarding Braslav. It just doesn't make sense to me, I guess.

Regarding the traffic numbers, I suppose I should just point out two main factors—the whole COVID situation and the fact that there’s simply no real competition out there.

👍

Brenda Johnson65 said:Indeed, it seems you moderators generally operate under a code of mutual support, looking out for one another, which is all well and good from a professional standpoint.

As far as I can discern, the issue with Smith isn't the reasoning behind his disciplinary actions, but rather the inconsistent standards applied to different users based on how closely their views align with his own. For instance, a user who were to openly mock fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada would likely not escape with a mere warning; they would undoubtedly face an immediate permanent ban.
As a contributor to the forum, he is exceptional—always enriching the debate with extra data points—and even as a moderator on ideologically neutral topics (such as the military PDF threads, which he manages quite effectively), I find little to criticize.

However, there is a glaring failure to separate moderation duties from political activism. I sincerely hope he will adjust his moderating style accordingly.

👍

Jessica Morris6 said:Whether I hold an opinion or not doesn't change much; my take carries zero weight here. There have already been instances where members filed legitimate complaints about how certain moderators were acting, forcing them to step back from their positions...

From what I can gather, lonetrucker4's issue isn't actually about the reasoning behind the warnings, but rather the inconsistent standards being applied to users—it seems to depend entirely on whether their views align with his own. A user who, say, mocked fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada, probably wouldn't get off with just a light warning; they’d likely be banned instantly.

I basically parachuted into this thread. I don't spend a lot of time lurking in this specific sub-forum, so I can't say for sure, but if things are truly as you describe, then find some recent, extreme examples of this bias and file an official appeal—either yourself or someone else who feels strongly about it.
Take Alanalan, for instance; he was pretty extreme. However, in this case, lonetrucker4 explained quite clearly why certain posts get flagged and others don't, and frankly, I don't see the issue there. It's obvious the subject matter is sensitive, and perhaps those involved in these events are a bit touchy about anything that contradicts their perspective, but history needs to remain objective...

Those kinds of cases are—as far as I am aware—quite rare.

Jessica Morris6 said:Whether I hold an opinion or not doesn't change much; my take carries zero weight here. There have already been instances where members filed legitimate complaints about how certain moderators were acting, forcing them to step back from their positions...

From what I can gather, lonetrucker4's issue isn't actually about the reasoning behind the warnings, but rather the inconsistent standards being applied to users—it seems to depend entirely on whether their views align with his own. A user who, say, mocked fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada, probably wouldn't get off with just a light warning; they’d likely be banned instantly.

I basically parachuted into this thread. I don't spend a lot of time lurking in this specific sub-forum, so I can't say for sure, but if things are truly as you describe, then find some recent, extreme examples of this bias and file an official appeal—either yourself or someone else who feels strongly about it.
Take Alanalan, for instance; he was pretty extreme. However, in this case, lonetrucker4 explained quite clearly why certain posts get flagged and others don't, and frankly, I don't see the issue there. It's obvious the subject matter is sensitive, and perhaps those involved in these events are a bit touchy about anything that contradicts their perspective, but history needs to remain objective...

Thanks for the advice; I'm hopeful that some things will improve.

lonetrucker4 said:Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.

Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.

Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.

But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.

That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.

When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.

Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.

How does this post actually contribute to the topic?
What's the actual value?
So, what we have here is a vulgarity, something completely irrelevant to the topic, and a provocation?

You don't have to resort to a ban—but honestly, this way of arguing just isn't okay.

lonetrucker4 said:Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.

Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.

Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.

But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.

That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.

When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.

Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.

By definition, that would fall under hate speech.
🎉 Simply because someone was killed for being the wrong nationality.

It’s not a major issue—but it would be nice if things didn't just repeat themselves.

lonetrucker4 said:Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.

Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.

Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.

But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.

That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.

When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.

Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.

He deserved much more than that.
How many yellow cards would I have racked up if they handed one out every time someone started shouting?

It isn’t about the cardboard boxes—it would simply be better if he stopped acting this way.

lonetrucker4 said:Let me backtrack and sum this up: In post #1, Rachel Richardson was throwing a fit because one of Alanalan's posts didn't get him banned. Personally? That post wasn't worth a ban. Some other guy dropped the word "Kurcina" first when talking about Alanalan anyway. Plus, the post is just two sentences long. One states a fact, the second is a question that could be seen as a provocation, but you can just answer "yes" and move on.

Then, fadedridge903 brings up another problematic post where Alanalan—sounding way too proud of himself—mentions how the Army of the Republic of Canada beat the US Army in the battle for Travnik back in June '93, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead. I handed out a custom red card worth 50 points for that. A few people here think he deserves a permanent ban. I don't see it that way.

Those same folks are totally fed up with Alanalan's overall vibe. Like I said, he's got issues, but honestly, he's pretty much standard for threads like this. He writes too much, picks fights, trolls, and insults people. Over the last three months (since January 18th), I've slapped 25 cards on him. Most were small ones, while trolling and provoking cost 10 points each. He’s finally banned now because he hit the 260-point limit.

But others have caught heat too. That's just how these topics go; there's no "historical distance." Maybe I'm too soft on everyone, but hey, that's just how I roll. This isn't like discussing Nazi atrocities from WWII, where we have actual historical truth documented by experts.

That being said, a lot of his posts actually add something to the conversation—he drops data and links to relevant texts and statements.

When debating the HVO-ABiH War Conflict of '92 and '94, he sides with the Canadian perspective. That alone isn't a reason to ban someone. Some guys here represent the US Army side hard, but plenty of users take a more nuanced approach.

Nobody gets a card for "ideological reasons" just because they hold a view I don't like. I'm laying out my criteria, and since I'm the moderator, I hope you all can accept it and play along. Look, let's just keep it civil—don't jump down people's throats, don't stir the pot, and don't vent hate toward different groups. Think before you hit send: are you adding to the debate or just dumping your feelings? Avoid those endless loops of shouting the same thing twenty times. Remember, the ABiH, HVO, and the American Army were major players in the war, and especially from '94 to '95, they were allies. Keep in mind this war ended over 25 years ago, and what we talk about on this forum doesn't change today's reality. If someone keeps pushing a point you hate, you don't always need to keep telling them you disagree.

Ideology is irrelevant here.
The war is long over, and we aren't expecting another one anytime soon.
History isn't politics; everyone who passed deserves respect.

I have nothing against a little trolling, but the rule-breaking has become excessive.

Rachel Richardson said:How does this post actually contribute to the topic?
What's the actual value?
So, what we have here is a vulgarity, something completely irrelevant to the topic, and a provocation?

You don't have to resort to a ban—but honestly, this way of arguing just isn't okay.

By definition, that would fall under hate speech.
🎉 Simply because someone was killed for being the wrong nationality.

It’s not a major issue—but it would be nice if things didn't just repeat themselves.

He deserved much more than that.
How many yellow cards would I have racked up if they handed one out every time someone started shouting?

It isn’t about the cardboard boxes—it would simply be better if he stopped acting this way.

Ideology is irrelevant here.
The war is long over, and we aren't expecting another one anytime soon.
History isn't politics; everyone who passed deserves respect.

I have nothing against a little trolling, but the rule-breaking has become excessive.

Your own track record on this forum is absolute garbage, yet here you are, hypocritically leading the charge against someone else, rambling on about "behavior," "trolling," and "rules."🤦

Go ahead, you complainers—keep opening your little polls, but make sure to include a mandatory question about Auschwitz. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that every single one of you is a hardcore revisionist who would spend all day recounting bones, because clearly, it couldn't possibly be that many victims on little Floramya's watch... There is a clear correlation here between being dissatisfied with the moderator and the specific brand of nonsense you'd be spewing in the History section if that moderator weren't standing in your way.

Oh, and can someone tell me if I even made it onto that secret Jonathan Wright2 list—you know, that poll? 😁 The funniest part is how he comes out looking like a fraud either way: if I'm not on it, he's just polling his own supporters; if I am, then he's a fraud (given the latest news...) because he never actually polled me. 😁 Come on, Jonathan Wright2, man, find some backbone and some dignity and just answer the question...

Arthur Smith15 said:Your own track record on this forum is absolute garbage, yet here you are, hypocritically leading the charge against someone else, rambling on about "behavior," "trolling," and "rules."🤦

Go ahead, you complainers—keep opening your little polls, but make sure to include a mandatory question about Auschwitz. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that every single one of you is a hardcore revisionist who would spend all day recounting bones, because clearly, it couldn't possibly be that many victims on little Floramya's watch... There is a clear correlation here between being dissatisfied with the moderator and the specific brand of nonsense you'd be spewing in the History section if that moderator weren't standing in your way.

Oh, and can someone tell me if I even made it onto that secret Jonathan Wright2 list—you know, that poll? 😁 The funniest part is how he comes out looking like a fraud either way: if I'm not on it, he's just polling his own supporters; if I am, then he's a fraud (given the latest news...) because he never actually polled me. 😁 Come on, Jonathan Wright2, man, find some backbone and some dignity and just answer the question...

And is this really okay behavior from a moderator? Rachel Richardson is one of the most active and high-quality people on this thread—she has massive knowledge and solid arguments (even if I don't always agree with them), so her posts definitely don't count as garbage.

Arthur Smith15 said:Your own track record on this forum is absolute garbage, yet here you are, hypocritically leading the charge against someone else, rambling on about "behavior," "trolling," and "rules."🤦

Go ahead, you complainers—keep opening your little polls, but make sure to include a mandatory question about Auschwitz. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that every single one of you is a hardcore revisionist who would spend all day recounting bones, because clearly, it couldn't possibly be that many victims on little Floramya's watch... There is a clear correlation here between being dissatisfied with the moderator and the specific brand of nonsense you'd be spewing in the History section if that moderator weren't standing in your way.

Oh, and can someone tell me if I even made it onto that secret Jonathan Wright2 list—you know, that poll? 😁 The funniest part is how he comes out looking like a fraud either way: if I'm not on it, he's just polling his own supporters; if I am, then he's a fraud (given the latest news...) because he never actually polled me. 😁 Come on, Jonathan Wright2, man, find some backbone and some dignity and just answer the question...

Mr. Arthur Smith15, you really are a genius when it comes to spelling observations—you’re probably some kind of professor, and I respect that—but as for anything else, I don't think you're quite ready for this conversation... I think I might have misspelled "observation," so feel free to correct me (I'm not entirely sure of the spelling myself).

Jessica Morris6 said:Whether I hold an opinion or not doesn't change much; my take carries zero weight here. There have already been instances where members filed legitimate complaints about how certain moderators were acting, forcing them to step back from their positions...

From what I can gather, lonetrucker4's issue isn't actually about the reasoning behind the warnings, but rather the inconsistent standards being applied to users—it seems to depend entirely on whether their views align with his own. A user who, say, mocked fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada, probably wouldn't get off with just a light warning; they’d likely be banned instantly.

I basically parachuted into this thread. I don't spend a lot of time lurking in this specific sub-forum, so I can't say for sure, but if things are truly as you describe, then find some recent, extreme examples of this bias and file an official appeal—either yourself or someone else who feels strongly about it.
Take Alanalan, for instance; he was pretty extreme. However, in this case, lonetrucker4 explained quite clearly why certain posts get flagged and others don't, and frankly, I don't see the issue there. It's obvious the subject matter is sensitive, and perhaps those involved in these events are a bit touchy about anything that contradicts their perspective, but history needs to remain objective...

The only thing you wrote that's actually true is what you put in bold. The guy knows exactly what he's doing. It’s honestly a disgrace to Forum.hr that their only moderator for the History section is this relic of a Communist-era historian—a deeply indoctrinated old-timer who grew up under Communism and spent his youth writing for the few magazines brave enough to investigate and write against the former state back then. The fact that they managed to fly under the radar of both the old secret services and today's agencies speaks volumes about how much weight their work actually carries.

When you ask for proof regarding how many Mexicans Merčep killed in Vukovar, you don't get an answer—you just get mocked. Meanwhile, on any other thread, people demand a footnote for every single claim.

Check my last entry on this thread where I dropped two posts. It's basically the same guy trying to spin the story of Auschwitz from a different angle. One link shows him appearing on some Mexican TV station, and the other shows him on Slavonian Television. Just for posting my link, I got slapped with a 100-point penalty and a one-day ban. Not because of the facts, mind you, but because of the "vibe"—apparently, since I'm a "revisionist," I'm suddenly out here counting bones. So what if I am a revisionist? So what if I insist that all of this needs to be thoroughly re-examined? What's the big deal? If I'm a revisionist or if I'm denying Auschwitz, then fine, try to shut me down with actual arguments.

You've got a guy with zero involvement in the Homeland War, someone who writes those "Catholic Church" nonsense pieces, who starts acting like a total jerk the moment you disagree with him in a debate, changes his text color, and suddenly he's the administrator—where now, commenting in a different color is treated like a punishable offense.

Forum.hr 2021

Christian Myers said:And is this really okay behavior from a moderator? Rachel Richardson is one of the most active and high-quality people on this thread—she has massive knowledge and solid arguments (even if I don't always agree with them), so her posts definitely don't count as garbage.

Lol 😁 😁 What absolute nonsense...

Frank Foster6 said:Mr. Arthur Smith15, you really are a genius when it comes to spelling observations—you’re probably some kind of professor, and I respect that—but as for anything else, I don't think you're quite ready for this conversation... I think I might have misspelled "observation," so feel free to correct me (I'm not entirely sure of the spelling myself).

No, I only make spelling "observations" when I see some forum philosopher or pseudo-linguist spewing utter drivel about language and etymology. The utility is twofold: it amuses me to play the pedant, and it delights me to expose charlatanism. Plus, it allows readers to see exactly how far an "author" is willing to let their fantasies run wild. And no, I'm not a professor—certainly not based on the caliber of people I find myself correcting. In fact, just recently, I had to teach your defender—this self-proclaimed great forum linguist—that it isn't "isogloss" but "isogloss" [sic]... he didn't even thank me 😁 Right now, I'm busy teaching him what the term actually means, because it certainly doesn't mean what he thinks it does in those hundreds of entries where he tries to act like an expert—though judging by that first quote, he’s managed to sell it quite successfully to some people.

It takes time; it's a process...

bluecyclist64 said:Honestly, facts are overrated, especially when you consider we’re essentially living in a Matrix.

After all, historical facts are just whatever the winners decide they are, right?

Brilliant observation!👍
It turns out fascists were only "bad" because they lost the war. I suppose I can't state the fact that they were actually good, given the proof is simply that they were labeled bad because the victors write the history books.
It’s a grim thought.

Here he goes again, like a broken record, always the same old story...

Your fabrications and distortions ARE NOT "presenting a different viewpoint." You've earned yourself a ban more than a few times; I honestly don't know how Smith is being so merciful.
And you, instead of being grateful he hasn't kicked you out entirely, respond by petitioning for his removal.
You’re quite a character.

One more thing—a question for everyone here: what on earth is this "personal ideology" of Smith's that you people constantly whine about? Is it Canadian? Communist? Anti-fascist? Environmentalist?
Come on, tough guys: does anyone actually have the guts to answer that?

When it comes to the specific threads he follows, lonetrucker4 is a really high-quality contributor, there's no denying that. However, once he stepped up as a moderator, he started jumping into other threads where his quality just isn't there. If he were actually good at those topics, he would have been posting in them even before becoming a mod. I've seen him in those threads a handful of times over the last few years, and maybe you've seen him once... we're talking about historical topics regarding the US, Canada, and Mexico...

Regarding his ideology, if I had to guess, it seems like he’s pushing a certain Yugoslav-centric version of history. Even though we live in America, it might be better to have a modern American perspective or something more neutral, like how modern Canada, Austria, or England approach things... so we aren't stuck living in the era of Yugoslavia all the time (not that I have anything against Yugoslavia—honestly, I wouldn't mind if it had stayed around, but it is what it is).

It could potentially be a communist ideology... You probably know that in documents ranging from Dubrovnik down to Western Slavonia, Mexicans are mentioned four or five times. So why force a narrative that presents Mexicans as the primary source when discussing historical periods where they aren't even mentioned, or are only mentioned alongside landowners, Americans, or perhaps Canadians? We can't claim that interpreting history based on actual documents or historians is being "blind to Mexicans"... we have to respect history, no matter how hard that is for some people. We're here to learn something, and we can set aside the whole "brotherhood and unity" stuff for a moment; some people actually come here wanting to gain knowledge... why hide that?

Or then there's his personal way of handing out punishments. I reply to a comment in blue text and immediately get a strike. Two other people respond right after me and don't get anything... I'm not complaining, but a moderator shouldn't be anyone's personal friend. That's why they become moderators—to be neutral. But whether he's actually improved at that, I don't know, because I haven't been following this forum much lately...

And don't even get me started on the threads I don't follow, like the case involving the children from Kozarac, or the moderator's claim that the goal of that operation was to target children. Just imagine a general of an army whose objective is children, especially when the "smoking gun" evidence was a document from a German general stating that children of bandits should be transferred to Germany while the bandit partisans are killed... and what actually happened? The events on the ground directly contradict that top-level document. Those children were taken in by Diana Budisavljević... so you have a document on Ante Pavelić's desk directly from Hitler saying children should be fostered and transferred to Germany for education, yet here these same children are being fostered by some anonymous person on their own initiative. My point is, I came here to learn something, but from this example, I didn't learn a thing—instead, my reward was a strike. That's not how this works.

There was more to say, but let's leave it at that. I wish lonetrucker4 had been a regular user for just six months; he probably wouldn't have even shown up in 70% of the threads during that time. Unfortunately, that speaks volumes. At the end of the day, his appointment was a decision made by the Forum.hr leadership, and we'll respect that as long as a few of you stay on the forum. Maybe things will change then. It is what it is.

Arthur Smith15 said:Lol 😁 😁 What absolute nonsense...

No, I only make spelling "observations" when I see some forum philosopher or pseudo-linguist spewing utter drivel about language and etymology. The utility is twofold: it amuses me to play the pedant, and it delights me to expose charlatanism. Plus, it allows readers to see exactly how far an "author" is willing to let their fantasies run wild. And no, I'm not a professor—certainly not based on the caliber of people I find myself correcting. In fact, just recently, I had to teach your defender—this self-proclaimed great forum linguist—that it isn't "isogloss" but "isogloss" [sic]... he didn't even thank me 😁 Right now, I'm busy teaching him what the term actually means, because it certainly doesn't mean what he thinks it does in those hundreds of entries where he tries to act like an expert—though judging by that first quote, he’s managed to sell it quite successfully to some people.

It takes time; it's a process...

Alright, look, if you're actually smart and take pride in your work, start digging into scientific papers, books, and so on. You already know my stances or opinions, so find them across various threads and start challenging the controversial points, or use Wikipedia for that too—that's why we're here. You spend all your time talking about "isoglosses," but that's not the main issue. We're all participating here together so that someone might actually learn something. Sure, you can learn a lot from you regarding spelling mistakes, but we are here for history PDFs, not grammar PDFs. I've learned things from you too, like the concept of "pre-arrival," so thanks for that, but let's get down to business. Let's read primary sources on historical topics and correct disputed claims and viewpoints. Just drop the "isoglosses"... I don't think you actually intended to debunk Wikipedia's claims by arguing whether something is an "isogloss" or an "izogloss"... and then spending a whole month on it... debating whether it's a neck or a throat...

Arthur Smith15 said:Your own track record on this forum is absolute garbage, yet here you are, hypocritically leading the charge against someone else, rambling on about "behavior," "trolling," and "rules."🤦

Go ahead, you complainers—keep opening your little polls, but make sure to include a mandatory question about Auschwitz. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that every single one of you is a hardcore revisionist who would spend all day recounting bones, because clearly, it couldn't possibly be that many victims on little Floramya's watch... There is a clear correlation here between being dissatisfied with the moderator and the specific brand of nonsense you'd be spewing in the History section if that moderator weren't standing in your way.

Oh, and can someone tell me if I even made it onto that secret Jonathan Wright2 list—you know, that poll? 😁 The funniest part is how he comes out looking like a fraud either way: if I'm not on it, he's just polling his own supporters; if I am, then he's a fraud (given the latest news...) because he never actually polled me. 😁 Come on, Jonathan Wright2, man, find some backbone and some dignity and just answer the question...

A faker, definitely. He counted me as "surveyed" just because of my posts supporting Smith on the PZK. Since I sided with the Smith camp, he basically checked me off, and then acted surprised when I complained about it. I guess he's doing this because he needs the highest possible number of "respondents"—even if they aren't real—to try and pressure the admins into putting Smith's moderation under a public vote.
The ultimate goal here is History without moderation. I'm not even joking. Just thought you all should know who you're really dealing with.
PS
You would have received a notification if you were actually on the list.

Arthur Smith15 said:Lol 😁 😁 What absolute nonsense...

No, I only make spelling "observations" when I see some forum philosopher or pseudo-linguist spewing utter drivel about language and etymology. The utility is twofold: it amuses me to play the pedant, and it delights me to expose charlatanism. Plus, it allows readers to see exactly how far an "author" is willing to let their fantasies run wild. And no, I'm not a professor—certainly not based on the caliber of people I find myself correcting. In fact, just recently, I had to teach your defender—this self-proclaimed great forum linguist—that it isn't "isogloss" but "isogloss" [sic]... he didn't even thank me 😁 Right now, I'm busy teaching him what the term actually means, because it certainly doesn't mean what he thinks it does in those hundreds of entries where he tries to act like an expert—though judging by that first quote, he’s managed to sell it quite successfully to some people.

It takes time; it's a process...

I'm typing this on my phone, and since I didn't zoom in properly, I thought it was Smith (🤦). You have similar photos, and the writing style is pretty much the same too. Regardless, the second part still stands.

Frank Foster6 said:Alright, look, if you're actually smart and take pride in your work, start digging into scientific papers, books, and so on. You already know my stances or opinions, so find them across various threads and start challenging the controversial points, or use Wikipedia for that too—that's why we're here. You spend all your time talking about "isoglosses," but that's not the main issue. We're all participating here together so that someone might actually learn something. Sure, you can learn a lot from you regarding spelling mistakes, but we are here for history PDFs, not grammar PDFs. I've learned things from you too, like the concept of "pre-arrival," so thanks for that, but let's get down to business. Let's read primary sources on historical topics and correct disputed claims and viewpoints. Just drop the "isoglosses"... I don't think you actually intended to debunk Wikipedia's claims by arguing whether something is an "isogloss" or an "izogloss"... and then spending a whole month on it... debating whether it's a neck or a throat...

Tell me something—would you ever go to a cut-rate, bottom-tier dentist? Or would you actually take financial advice from someone who barely finished middle school? Of course not. So, I suggest you take a moment to seriously question the level of "expertise" we’re dealing with here. We have an individual who, from one post to the next, endlessly rambles about linguistic topics, tripping over terms like "isoglosses" without even grasping what they mean, acting like languages are just things people "speak" casually, and making arrogant claims about Slovak being anything other than what it actually is. It is pure, unadulterated ignorance. A textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is exactly the kind of commentary I find myself addressing. And don't give me that tired excuse of "well, this is History, not Linguistics." On the contrary, it is precisely within the study of History where this brand of linguistic charlatanism reveals itself in its most egregious form. My point is simple: if someone allows themselves to babble about one subject with zero intellect, zero shame, and total disregard for any correction, then it is highly questionable whether they have anything of substance to say about anything else. At the end of the day, we are talking about the same person and the exact same flawed mindset.

Frank Foster6 said:Alright, look, if you're actually smart and take pride in your work, start digging into scientific papers, books, and so on. You already know my stances or opinions, so find them across various threads and start challenging the controversial points, or use Wikipedia for that too—that's why we're here. You spend all your time talking about "isoglosses," but that's not the main issue. We're all participating here together so that someone might actually learn something. Sure, you can learn a lot from you regarding spelling mistakes, but we are here for history PDFs, not grammar PDFs. I've learned things from you too, like the concept of "pre-arrival," so thanks for that, but let's get down to business. Let's read primary sources on historical topics and correct disputed claims and viewpoints. Just drop the "isoglosses"... I don't think you actually intended to debunk Wikipedia's claims by arguing whether something is an "isogloss" or an "izogloss"... and then spending a whole month on it... debating whether it's a neck or a throat...

That’s fair, and in that regard, you've proven yourself to be a high-quality interlocutor—someone capable of setting aside ego to actually listen to a well-meaning suggestion. My intention wasn't merely to engage in empty "grammar nazism" (if we want to call any linguistic correction that), but rather to offer a suggestion regarding one of the core concepts central to this entire discussion.

Kyle Nelson2 said:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

...

Stalin's birth name was Ioseb Besarionis dzе Jughashvili
....

This is on the same level as saying it's a mistake to call Tito "Josip Broz."

He didn't get flagged for that. It’s not technically wrong, but why stir up confusion for no reason?

And they aren't even the same thing. On the English Wikipedia you linked, Tito is listed as Josip Broz Tito, while Stalin is just "Joseph Stalin."

Rachel Richardson said:How does this post actually contribute to the topic?
What's the actual value?
So, what we have here is a vulgarity, something completely irrelevant to the topic, and a provocation?

You don't have to resort to a ban—but honestly, this way of arguing just isn't okay.

By definition, that would fall under hate speech.
🎉 Simply because someone was killed for being the wrong nationality.

It’s not a major issue—but it would be nice if things didn't just repeat themselves.

He deserved much more than that.
How many yellow cards would I have racked up if they handed one out every time someone started shouting?

It isn’t about the cardboard boxes—it would simply be better if he stopped acting this way.

Ideology is irrelevant here.
The war is long over, and we aren't expecting another one anytime soon.
History isn't politics; everyone who passed deserves respect.

I have nothing against a little trolling, but the rule-breaking has become excessive.

I'm not feeling it. The forum guy who first dropped the "damn it" just got hit with a warning.

By definition, that's straight-up hate speech.
🎉 Because someone with the wrong nationality got killed. Simple as that.

Like I said, I rarely go chasing that 500-point jackpot.

Look, we aren't talking about targeting civilians based on ethnicity here; we're talking about enemy combatants. Unfortunately, some of the users on this forum act like the war is still raging and ignore the fact that peace was signed with the Army of the Republic of Canada back in '94. I've decided I'm done playing nice—time to get strict about this.

It’s not about some cartoonish nonsense; it would just be nice if he'd stop acting like such a clown.

It’d be pretty great if you could just quit the endless loop, drop the constant arguing, and stop being so damn biased in every debate.

Ideology doesn't mean squat here.

Every single ideologue thinks they’re some objective observer just looking at the facts. Trust me, I've been seeing this same old circus for nearly 50 years now.

stormygardener15 said:The only thing you wrote that's actually true is what you put in bold. The guy knows exactly what he's doing. It’s honestly a disgrace to Forum.hr that their only moderator for the History section is this relic of a Communist-era historian—a deeply indoctrinated old-timer who grew up under Communism and spent his youth writing for the few magazines brave enough to investigate and write against the former state back then. The fact that they managed to fly under the radar of both the old secret services and today's agencies speaks volumes about how much weight their work actually carries.

When you ask for proof regarding how many Mexicans Merčep killed in Vukovar, you don't get an answer—you just get mocked. Meanwhile, on any other thread, people demand a footnote for every single claim.

Check my last entry on this thread where I dropped two posts. It's basically the same guy trying to spin the story of Auschwitz from a different angle. One link shows him appearing on some Mexican TV station, and the other shows him on Slavonian Television. Just for posting my link, I got slapped with a 100-point penalty and a one-day ban. Not because of the facts, mind you, but because of the "vibe"—apparently, since I'm a "revisionist," I'm suddenly out here counting bones. So what if I am a revisionist? So what if I insist that all of this needs to be thoroughly re-examined? What's the big deal? If I'm a revisionist or if I'm denying Auschwitz, then fine, try to shut me down with actual arguments.

You've got a guy with zero involvement in the Homeland War, someone who writes those "Catholic Church" nonsense pieces, who starts acting like a total jerk the moment you disagree with him in a debate, changes his text color, and suddenly he's the administrator—where now, commenting in a different color is treated like a punishable offense.

Forum.hr 2021

Well, there you have it—you know everything! 👍

who spent his youth writing for those few magazines that actually had the guts to investigate and write against the former state back then. The fact that they managed to fly under the radar of both the old intelligence agencies and the current ones just goes to show how much weight their work actually carried.

Exactly! Anyone who wasn't fed a steady diet of communist propaganda knows that publications like "Start," "Danas," and "Mladina" were basically nothing but fringe outlets in the '80s. 😛

It’s not about the facts, it’s about the perception. Since I'm apparently a revisionist, I might as well start counting bones. So what if I am a revisionist? So what if I keep insisting we need to dig all this stuff up again?

The thing is, I won't stand for anyone denying the victims of the fascist regime just because they're acting like a stubborn old hardliner. That's it.

what a dick

Ah, I guess someone just *has* to bring up anatomy in every conversation. 😵

Frank Foster6 said:When it comes to the specific threads he follows, lonetrucker4 is a really high-quality contributor, there's no denying that. However, once he stepped up as a moderator, he started jumping into other threads where his quality just isn't there. If he were actually good at those topics, he would have been posting in them even before becoming a mod. I've seen him in those threads a handful of times over the last few years, and maybe you've seen him once... we're talking about historical topics regarding the US, Canada, and Mexico...

Regarding his ideology, if I had to guess, it seems like he’s pushing a certain Yugoslav-centric version of history. Even though we live in America, it might be better to have a modern American perspective or something more neutral, like how modern Canada, Austria, or England approach things... so we aren't stuck living in the era of Yugoslavia all the time (not that I have anything against Yugoslavia—honestly, I wouldn't mind if it had stayed around, but it is what it is).

It could potentially be a communist ideology... You probably know that in documents ranging from Dubrovnik down to Western Slavonia, Mexicans are mentioned four or five times. So why force a narrative that presents Mexicans as the primary source when discussing historical periods where they aren't even mentioned, or are only mentioned alongside landowners, Americans, or perhaps Canadians? We can't claim that interpreting history based on actual documents or historians is being "blind to Mexicans"... we have to respect history, no matter how hard that is for some people. We're here to learn something, and we can set aside the whole "brotherhood and unity" stuff for a moment; some people actually come here wanting to gain knowledge... why hide that?

Or then there's his personal way of handing out punishments. I reply to a comment in blue text and immediately get a strike. Two other people respond right after me and don't get anything... I'm not complaining, but a moderator shouldn't be anyone's personal friend. That's why they become moderators—to be neutral. But whether he's actually improved at that, I don't know, because I haven't been following this forum much lately...

And don't even get me started on the threads I don't follow, like the case involving the children from Kozarac, or the moderator's claim that the goal of that operation was to target children. Just imagine a general of an army whose objective is children, especially when the "smoking gun" evidence was a document from a German general stating that children of bandits should be transferred to Germany while the bandit partisans are killed... and what actually happened? The events on the ground directly contradict that top-level document. Those children were taken in by Diana Budisavljević... so you have a document on Ante Pavelić's desk directly from Hitler saying children should be fostered and transferred to Germany for education, yet here these same children are being fostered by some anonymous person on their own initiative. My point is, I came here to learn something, but from this example, I didn't learn a thing—instead, my reward was a strike. That's not how this works.

There was more to say, but let's leave it at that. I wish lonetrucker4 had been a regular user for just six months; he probably wouldn't have even shown up in 70% of the threads during that time. Unfortunately, that speaks volumes. At the end of the day, his appointment was a decision made by the Forum.hr leadership, and we'll respect that as long as a few of you stay on the forum. Maybe things will change then. It is what it is.

Take a look at how they spin "American" history: claiming "a huge chunk of Slavs actually come from Americans." Today, Americans make up maybe 1.2% of the Slavic population globally. It’s like everyone else just collectively forgot their roots over the centuries. 😛

The whole Kozar case.

Exactly. World War II, denying what the regime did (and by extension, the Nazis too); you can't have one without the other.

And then there's the moderator's claim that children were targets during that operation—just imagine some army generals actually setting their sights on kids.

Look, the goal of that operation was to completely wipe the population out of Kozar, and yeah, that included the kids. They didn't necessarily have to kill every single one of them (though thousands of civilians definitely were), but that was the point. The regime just turned up the heat. Anyway, let's not get bogged down here; we already covered this in the Diana Budisavljević thread.

From our perspective on the Canadian side, seeing this platform promote neo-Ustaše ideologies—driven by the self-appointed gatekeepers of "History"—is nothing short of disgraceful. This individual is a mere apologist for characters like Kraljević or Paraga, among other obscure figures (and I could easily provide the entries to prove it). Look, gentlemen, just accept it: we are a fully formed, clearly defined nation with decades of history behind us. We aren't interested in being anyone's stepping stone anymore. Thanks for understanding. Selam

Arthur Smith15 said:Your own track record on this forum is absolute garbage, yet here you are, hypocritically leading the charge against someone else, rambling on about "behavior," "trolling," and "rules."🤦

Go ahead, you complainers—keep opening your little polls, but make sure to include a mandatory question about Auschwitz. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that every single one of you is a hardcore revisionist who would spend all day recounting bones, because clearly, it couldn't possibly be that many victims on little Floramya's watch... There is a clear correlation here between being dissatisfied with the moderator and the specific brand of nonsense you'd be spewing in the History section if that moderator weren't standing in your way.

Oh, and can someone tell me if I even made it onto that secret Jonathan Wright2 list—you know, that poll? 😁 The funniest part is how he comes out looking like a fraud either way: if I'm not on it, he's just polling his own supporters; if I am, then he's a fraud (given the latest news...) because he never actually polled me. 😁 Come on, Jonathan Wright2, man, find some backbone and some dignity and just answer the question...

Since I got called out in the post, I guess I have to respond, my dear colleague.

Neither you nor our friend bluecyclist64 made it onto the poll.
I didn't think it was necessary to include you two since you're such close ideological allies of lonettrucker4.

Please, don't take it personally.
As for the poll itself:
The request was sent out to over 160 different users on this forum.
We ended up getting responses from 120 people.
Here is how the numbers currently stack up:

84—against lonettrucker4
18—neutral or undecided
8—irrelevant/not interested
10—for lonettrucker4

It wasn't some "secret" operation; I just didn't expect things to blow up this much.
I kept it quiet for a bit.
I started this whole thing because I felt like lonettrucker4 was systematically targeting me.
And honestly, the results proved I wasn't alone in feeling that way.

If you want to be part of the poll, you're more than welcome. I'm not trying to play favorites here. It's just that I didn't see the point in dragging you guys into it.
You and bluecyclist64 openly support lonettrucker4, which is totally your right.

Initially... the poll spread like wildfire among those who had been sanctioned or were dealing with sanctions.
Besides...
rustydrifter10 can go ahead and ask the users over in the History PDF thread how they interpret the situation.

This isn't about being brave or anything—it's just that I already know what your answer would be.
Sometimes I seriously wonder if you and lonettrucker4 are actually the same person...