Unacceptable bias and power tripping by the Lowe's moderator

"Hardly anyone actually goes for one-night stands anymore. And honestly, any woman who does is just asking for trouble. Personally, I try my best to stay far away from women who are heading down that path—unless it's strictly professional and I have absolutely no choice in the matter."

Kurtzius Kura

And honestly, who is he even offending here? From where I’m sitting, he’s just made himself look like a complete and utter moron. Does someone really need to get banned for this? Isn't the fact that he just broadcasted to the entire internet how unattractive he is—basically admitting nobody has ever wanted to touch him—punishment enough?

I mean, why are we even bothering to laugh, get angry, or debate this guy? We don't need more "intellectual gems" like him cluttering up society today.
I have a proposal: let's have just one single day on this forum without a single moderator. I'll call in sick to work just so I can witness the absolute chaos unfold!😁

Daniel Ward87 said:Kurtz, you're definitely keeping that partial stake.

Look, Daniel Ward87, if you honestly think it’s enough to condemn someone based on nothing but rumors—like this claim that some anonymous people sued me just because their feelings were hurt, without anyone actually naming names or specifying what I supposedly did—then I have to say that even the USSR didn't go that far. At least back then, they had the decency to stage trials and manufacture testimony. Here? There isn't even a shred of evidence.

Phiber Optika, Auntie—care to tell me exactly which users filed complaints against me? I’d love to see what they actually found offensive. Maybe we can determine if these were genuine insults, or if we’re just dealing with a few overly sensitive types who think the world revolves around them and haven't realized yet that not everyone is obligated to share their specific worldview.

Same goes for you, Phiber Optika. I think you’ve lost your objectivity just because you can't stand my online persona. It won't be hard to prove, though—I could probably point to a few different topics where it's pretty obvious I'm getting under your skin.

I think you’d be better off protecting what’s left of your moderator reputation by rescinding this decision. Or, at the very least, present some actual evidence against me. Otherwise, I’m going to have to file a formal complaint against the entire mod team.

mistymason1 said:And thirdly, there’s this one person whose posts have been way more dismissive toward everyone else than mine ever were. Honestly, I don't know how they have the nerve to even show up here.

You really find all kinds of people around here.

Just so there’s no confusion, Phiber Optika, I wasn't talking about you. I didn't phrase that very clearly, I guess. I was actually referring to someone else—someone who seemingly has zero shame coming in here to lecture everyone.

George Thomas6 said:Will this country ever actually move past this totalitarian phase? I guess we'll see.

...

I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for the support.

Sarah Sanders34 said:If any former Microsoft moderator ever actually showed an ounce of common sense or tolerance, it was definitely these two currently running the PDF boards.

mistymason1, I’ve been reading your posts for a while now. I was just one of many people you tried to drag into those verbal tug-of-wars of yours—those contradictions where you use this specific, insulting tone to try and drive people crazy. It feels like you walk right up to the line of being offensive just to spike the tension, purely so people fight and everything descends into chaos instead of an actual discussion.

You’re that specific type of provocateur found on every single forum. It’s not surprising, but I don't blame people for reaching their breaking point. Honestly, lately, if I see you entering a thread, I just step away. I have no interest in reading how you pick fights and insult others just for the hell of it.

I wouldn't go so far as to call you stupid. You seem like a decent enough guy with the potential to say something smart, but yeah, you definitely know how to make things uncomfortable and throw insults.

It might be worth trying to actually listen to what people are attempting to communicate here. I suspect you'll just find another way to tell everyone they're wrong and you're the only one who's right.

Whatever. I don't think you should disappear from the forum entirely. Stay if you want, mistymason1. But... I don't know, maybe just dial it back once in a while. Or at least—allow it.

Alex, I actually appreciate the support from people who don't agree with me. In fact, I'm probably pretty unlikable to them, but they aren't interested in playing these little smear games, character assassinations, or public lynchings. So, thanks. My only regret is that you stopped engaging in my debates, and that you didn't just dismantle my "verbal tug-of-war full of contradictions where I, as you put it, frequently use an insulting tone to try and drive my interlocutor crazy with just enough provocation to border on offense and humiliation, while simultaneously raising tensions just to cause chaos." If it were really that simple, you would have shut it down directly. 😉

Nicole Jones13 said:"Very few people practice ONS. And all the women who do are screwed. Personally, I'd rather stay on good terms with women who are in that situation—you know, keeping things professional or friendly when it can't be avoided."

mistymason1

And in what way did he offend anyone? From what I can see, he just made himself look like a stubborn idiot. Does that really warrant a ban?

As far as I know, he wasn't even punished. Things were fine until I hit a nerve regarding women and childbirth. And this—so what? This is just a standard value judgment. Don't people have the right to hold opinions, provided they aren't discriminating against others or causing harm? I'd hope so, unless we're all supposed to live in total conformity.

Hey Kurtz,

One of the big unwritten rules here is respecting privacy. That’s why most people use handles instead of their full legal names. We have a reporting system in place specifically so users can flag posts that don't fit the vibe of this forum. Now, truth be told, it’s not totally anonymous because reports go straight to the moderators handling that specific thread. However, they are strictly forbidden from leaking who filed the report—doing so would break our core principles. So, your request for the identity of whoever "sued" you isn't going to happen. Not happening at all.

Also, regarding your comment about someone coming here to lecture you without any shame. Why do you think anyone would come here just to lecture you? Honestly, if we're being real, that exact sentiment could apply to your entire posting history, which I’ve read in its entirety, by the way. It’s just not cool or respectful to talk to the other members like that.

The tricky part about running a forum is dealing with folks who dance right on the line between playful banter and outright insults, and they're usually pretty good at masking it. It takes a certain level of discipline to manage, and sometimes things slip through the cracks. Here are some examples:

mistymason1 said:Any kind of teasing crosses the line when the end goal isn't fun, but rather manipulation to boost the ego of the teaser. Those kinds of women (literally or figuratively) deserve a good old-fashioned slapping. Amen.
Flirting, though, is a completely different story.

Yeah, interestingly enough, any call for violence is strictly banned on this forum. Saying someone deserves to be "given a good slapping" counts as inciting or calling for violence. We don't allow that here.

mistymason1 said:Look, I’d never actually hit a woman. But I don't see that as a virtue; I see it as a flaw. Beating a woman to death or breaking her ribs is savagery. But a little slap isn't violence, even if saying that sounds blasphemous today..

I’m sticking to my guns—even though, again, I personally would never lay a hand on a woman, I still think the behavior described deserves at least one smack. Then again, the little slut would probably just get turned on afterward, so maybe it's better to skip it. Maybe you're right. Maybe a kick in the ass is the better move. 🤣

It's funny that you consider not hitting a woman a flaw. Fine, I guess some people feel that way, but using terms like "slut"... it feels like there's an underlying, whether conscious or not, attitude toward women starting to leak out through your words.

mistymason1 said:And who exactly is sticking up for them? Give me a break!

It’s just a bit deeper, no big deal. Female promiscuity is usually just a byproduct of mental instability, life's disappointments, or some subconscious urge to get back at a man. Real, empowered sexual freedom for women? Honestly, that’s just a myth. There’s always some deeper story running in the background if you just take a second to dig around.

Evolutionarily speaking, sex just isn't the same thing for men and women, and it never will be. Thinking that Western culture has actually changed the game since the sixties is honestly pretty naive.

It’s great when someone actually takes the time to dig into scientific papers—it's just a shame more people don't follow suit. But if you’re going to play that game, you should probably be fair about it. A lot of those studies and books actually point out that when you look at female promiscuity involving the traits you mentioned, the responsibility often falls on men and how they approach them. Since you clearly know how to pull facts from the data, it would be cool if you shared the whole picture. Right now, it feels like you're just cherry-picking info to troll.

mistymason1 said:It’s funny how those subconscious cravings slip out—that deep-seated need to be completely taken over. Especially when it comes from a woman who swears up and down she’s all about being independent and totally self-sufficient. Those little accidental slips from the subconscious are honestly gold. 😉

That’s an interesting take. I’m actually pretty fascinated by your conclusion regarding women and those subconscious needs. You start to see this pattern emerging more and more lately. It’s all about finding the pattern. Like when you finally notice how a specific driver always hits their blinker three seconds too late—once you see it, you can't unsee it. So, are we talking about the experience of women being treated like... well, objects?

mistymason1 said:You really think she’s never going to look you in the eye and ask, "So, who exactly is my dad?" 🙄
Like I said, you still haven't experienced the real deal. It’s like saying you love BBQ without ever having tried a slow-smoked brisket.
Look, Shero, you’re still living in a dream world. There’s no knight in shining armor coming to save the day—you're either going to learn that the hard way or the even harder way.

You’ve got a point—you’re basically saying I hide my actual opinions behind a veil of "just being neutral." It’s like a chef who claims they aren't picking the ingredients just to stay unbiased. But look, if we're being real, the mods should be looking at the subtext, not just the literal words, and the admins are there to back them up when things get subtle.

Here’s some of the "proof" behind why you got a partial. I honestly thought about scrapping this because, let’s be real, it looks a little sketchy—kind of like how you're implying someone just gets a partial out of nowhere without a massive file of warnings or a crazy track record. But, as usual, you have to dig just a little bit beneath the surface to actually make sense of things.

Hey there, just a heads up, the partial remains.

rustydrifter10, excuse me...?

William Reyes12 said:rustydrifter10, are you actually serious right now...?

I’m totally with Daniel Ward87 on this one.

mistymason1 is constantly cranking up the tension in the most trolling, argumentative, and downright offensive way possible. He just completely ignores whatever the moderators say and flat-out refuses to fix his attitude. This isn't about anyone trying to silence him just because they disagree with his take; it's about stopping someone from systematically breaking the rules over and over again, all while protecting everyone else here from his poorly disguised insults and constant provocations.

As someone who had the distinct, albeit rather exhausting, honor of moderating Microsoft back during the era when Kurtz was running wild with those PDF files, I find myself warmly welcoming this particular segment—even if it arrives somewhat behind schedule.
Greetings to you all, and may God’s blessings be upon every one of you, along with my very best wishes.

Dear Judge Daniel Ward87,

Do you actually believe anyone besides the people who hate me will buy into this Beria-style setup? I mean, it seems like everyone’s just been waiting for me to get physically kicked off this subforum—people like Jason Morgan, for instance. Honestly, the sheer amount of transparently manufactured nonsense coming from your end is staggering. And here I was, always thinking you were one of the sharper minds on this board. Clearly, I was right. You’ve proven yourself to be a pretty crafty, skilled manipulator with this rigged process. Fine. Let's take this step by step.

First off, it’s wild that you’re bringing up anonymity as an admin. People on this forum aren't exactly "anonymous"—they have distinct digital identities, handles, and avatars. By posting, they’re essentially carving out a persona, and other users judge them based on those specific perspectives and experiences. I think your obsession with anonymity is just a transparent attempt to justify a kangaroo court and a public lynching. I didn't demand anyone's legal name, cell number, or home address so I could go around harassing people at their houses. All I did was ask who made the accusations and what they were actually accusing me of. That’s basic due process—something that's been a standard since Roman times. Using "anonymity" to dodge accountability is a tactic usually reserved for the darkest, most terrifying totalitarian regimes. If you're comfortable running with that crowd, far be it from me to stop you.

First, let's clear up some obvious errors that aren't even worth a deep dive. Statements like "it isn't nice to discuss the content that way" don't actually tell us anything, because they focus on tone rather than substance. It’s also just a classic emotional appeal—an attempt to manipulate the conversation by painting me as insensitive or callous. Basically, you're trying to frame me as a bad person so that my arguments are automatically disqualified. It's a textbook ad hominem: I'm being "rude," which makes me a bad person, and therefore what I say is worthless. It’s logically flawed, I guess, but still a pretty clever bit of sophistry.

The following items in the menu are genuinely impressive. Honestly, even master manipulators like Goebbels or Beria wouldn't be ashamed of this level of deception. I guess I should say congratulations.

First off, this is just being taken out of context. It’s a classic Stalinist move. Second, I'm basically being blocked from defending myself because my parole doesn't allow me to actually address the topics that led to these accusations in the first place.

The facts here are a bit skewed. In those statements, I wasn't calling for violence; I was discussing how to respond to it. I don't know how much you know about linguistics, but I assume you realize that "violence" involves the concept of force. There’s psychological violence, physical violence, justified or otherwise—that part is always up for debate, I guess. On the other hand, even looking at the quotes, it’s pretty obvious that I’m not inciting anything. I’m actually making it clear that I wouldn't meet psychological violence with physical force. Instead, I’d just ignore it and cut off communication. That's passive-aggressive, sure, which is also a form of psychological violence. Maybe.

By using that term, I’m basically pointing toward a specific kind of sexual submissiveness that manifests through heightened aggression. It's pretty typical for certain psychological profiles, like Borderline Personality Disorder—which, in most cases, affects women. Aside from that, the term is just a diminutive; it implies something small or cute, which usually carries a slightly positive connotation. It's different from the more aggressive versions of the word, which are always intended to be insulting.

Should I also mention that those quotes were pulled from posts written a year or two ago? And now, suddenly, they're considered suspicious enough to get me banned.

Then there's that quote you used. It’s a bit of a pseudo-argument *ad verecundiam*, but honestly, even that falls flat because the premise isn't even true.

If you’re going to do this, you should probably be fair about it. Most books and articles on the subject—if not all of them—actually point out that when it comes to female promiscuity involving those traits you mentioned, the blame lies with men and how they treat them. Since you clearly know how to cherry-pick certain facts, it would be nice if you presented the full picture for once. Right now, this just feels like a deliberate omission. Or maybe just trolling.

Where did you even pull this from? Just made it up. So men are responsible for female promiscuity? I guess by that logic, women are to blame for male promiscuity. 😂 I'm not saying it's never a factor, or that things like assault don't trigger certain behaviors, but it’s more complicated than how you're framing it. Besides, there aren't any textbooks, peer-reviewed papers, or articles making that claim. So either you're mistaken or you're lying.

And then there's the "viewing a woman as an object" thing. Hmm. How do you view her? As a subject, maybe? Let's look at the grammar: Daniel Ward87 sleeps with a woman. The subject is Daniel Ward87, the predicate is sleeps with, and the object is the woman. Interesting. You could swap the predicate to "loves," but she's still the object. 🤷

Another one of your quotes: "Many of your posts carry an undertone of moralizing, cleverly masked as 'expressing personal opinion.' That's accurate, there isn't much explicit stuff, but it's the moderator's job to deal with the implicit too. And the admin's job is to help with that."

A-ha. So now I'm actually guilty not because what I wrote was wrong, but because you and everyone else thinks it was wrong.

"Denotation (the extensive or explicit meaning of a word, the content generally accepted by all speakers of a language) and connotation (the intensive or implicit meaning, which a word acquires in a specific context for an individual speaker)." Linguistics 101.

Do I really need to spell out that you just admitted you excluded me without any actual evidence, solely based on an intolerance for my views (the value judgments you call moralizing) and my style of discussion, rather than the actual substance of what I'm saying.

Anyway, let the other users, who actually follow my points, decide.

Chloe Green61 said:As someone who had the unbearable honor of moderating Microsoft back during Kurtz's PDF era, I warmly welcome this partiality, even if it arrives a bit late.
Best regards and God's blessings to you all, in my spirit.

Wait a second, was the dispute actually about my value judgments that apparently upset you so much? 🤷

Just as I suspected, you don't have a counterargument.

Anyway, I'm curious if you plan on banning everyone else who, according to your logic, is also calling for "violence" in these threads: