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...
Look, let's just get one thing straight once and for all—you're nothing more than a troll. Since you're already here, we might as well clear the air.
You keep jumping at me—constantly trying to play the intellectual, constantly pushing my buttons just to provoke a reaction.
You haven't been penalized even once—but honestly, what is the actual value of your posts?
Persistent personal attacks against other participants?
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.
It’s not okay at all—but the guy just won't quit, constantly harping on the exact same thing over and over again.
I honestly can't help but wonder—how many points would I have racked up if I had just given him a taste of his own medicine?
Starting with the (lack of) quality of his posts, and moving forward from there.
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).
It isn't.
His contribution to these discussions is pretty much limited to jumping into a thread and then launching unpunished insults at everyone else—just like he’s doing right 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
Unfortunately, this is the truth.
The flyers being handed out are creating a "wrong" impression.
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...
And you weren't even rewarded with points for all that effort.
Leaping in, picking fights—over and over again.
And you should have been there.
For every single one of those posts—for the entire story—you end up turning it back in a way that violates every single rule on the forum.
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.
👍
Look, Arthur Smith15 is a prime example of someone who just relentlessly insults others without ever facing any consequences.
So, what actually happened to him?
lonetrucker4 has his own ideology—which shouldn't be an issue in and of itself, regardless of how inaccurate it might be—provided that the forum rules are actually applied objectively.
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...
And that’s really the ceiling for him when it comes to actual debate.
Tragic.
Christian Myers said: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.
It occurred to me a few times as well—that cloning might actually be happening.
Arthur Smith15 said: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.
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.
Let's try this one more time.
Everything I’ve said has been backed by sources.
The theory regarding the South Slavic origins of the Central Slovak dialect (which serves as the basis for the Slovak standard) isn't mine—it belongs to Lončarić.
He is the linguistics authority here; I am certainly not.
Did you even bother reading his work on the Kajkavian dialect?
You keep lunging at me—being rude and trying to settle scores with imaginary enemies, as if you're trying to prove they're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Just take a breath, calm down, and go read the Forum.hr rules.
This forum isn't a place for bickering or for trying to prove how smart someone else is.
The whole point of a debate is to provide reasoned comments on the topic itself, not to attack the person you're talking to—which is exactly what you keep doing.
I’m seriously asking you to stop, just as I would ask the moderators to step in and address your behavior.
