Seeking expert guidance: How to write a proper defense?

1) Regarding the thread "Reporting posts by my philosophy colleague Sandra Murphy33 and Melissa Stewart6," they’ve essentially teamed up to stage an intervention against hiddenpuma75 (check out post 33). After twenty years of contributing to this forum, hiddenpuma75 finally gave them their due, and now they're looking to push him out fast. I suspect it's just because he doesn't share their exact views, which clearly gets under their skin.

2) Yesterday, I actually tried to post my defense on that same reporting thread, but the moderator wiped it out, labeling it as Spam. I ended up getting a one-day timeout, even though there wasn't any clear breakdown of the points used against me.🤔

3) All I did was copy over my arguments from post 379 on the Philosophy board within the Critique of Christianity thread. There, I demonstrated that these accusations are wildly exaggerated, factually incorrect in certain parts, and rooted entirely in personal animosity.

4) Since these two furious ladies 🙂 are working overtime to get someone banned, shouldn't the accused at least be allowed to defend themselves, right?

5) So, where exactly did I go wrong? 🤔

Was it because I cited my own defense from the Critique of Christianity thread? I suppose you aren't supposed to quote your own posts from different topics, 🤔right?

6) Is it okay if I write my new Apologia Pro Vita Sua now?

7) Could I please get some clear instructions from the expert jury—or should I call you the judicial council?—regarding what is and isn't allowed when presenting my defense?

I think you've actually got three angry ladies running circles around you instead of just two.

Melissa Stewart6 said:I think you've actually got three angry ladies running circles around you instead of just two.

Honestly, it reminds me of an Almodovar's film, where three women all lose their minds over one guy and just won't let him live. 😁

Watch out, you don't want to get flagged for Spam again lol

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095675/.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Watch out, you don't want to get flagged for Spam again lol

Honestly, I think humor might be the only rational way to deal with this whole cinematic drama unfolding before us. 😁

Melissa Stewart6 said:Watch out, you don't want to get flagged for Spam again lol

And honestly, instead of just sitting there enjoying the show, you could actually step up, say something meaningful, and help cool things down by defending hiddenpuma75.

Since you're right in the middle of this clash of worldviews over philosophy.

It’s almost like seeing how empowered women fighting against the patriarchy

have all teamed up against one single forum member while you just sit back eating popcorn 🍿 and enjoying the chaos 😛

It can't be a matter of personal animosity, considering we haven't actually met.

See how you just ramble nonsense?

It’s obvious you need to be removed from any serious discussions because you constantly Spam threads with the same repetitive, worthless, and tedious posts—you drop seven or eight comments in a row, peppered with large, bolded fonts, completely deviating from the topic. Either you're too dense to realize you've derailed the conversation into territory where it doesn't belong, or you simply don't care; you just mark your territory like a dog, desperate to link every single thought in your head back to your trivialities, your delusions, and communist crimes.

You manage to offend both the angels and the devils, yet you casually brush off every critique from other users—whether they are being well-meaning or blunt—defending yourself with endless follow-up posts as if you were the most important person in the world, or as if everyone is just waiting for you to show up and talk about yourself or "benevolently" gossip about others.
80% of your contributions are nothing more than mindless, sycophantic babbling; it isn't even functioning as a chat anymore.

You act like a CHILD—as the user Bema correctly pointed out—just running wild because there are no consequences, which is why I suggest the following:

A SPECIAL SUB-FORUM CORNER JUST FOR hiddenpuma75 where you can run wild with your hysterical, consecutive posts, and where you get to own every single thread. 😎
Your little friends could come by and bring you (emotional) sustenance like a stray dog on a leash—but you wouldn't be allowed anywhere else, since you clearly don't care whether you're a nuisance or not, and you refuse to listen to anyone, whether due to sheer stupidity or a blatant lack of respect for other users and your insistence on forcing your agenda.

How does that sound to you?
🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:1) Regarding the thread "Reporting posts by my philosophy colleague Sandra Murphy33 and Melissa Stewart6," they’ve essentially teamed up to stage an intervention against hiddenpuma75 (check out post 33). After twenty years of contributing to this forum, hiddenpuma75 finally gave them their due, and now they're looking to push him out fast. I suspect it's just because he doesn't share their exact views, which clearly gets under their skin.

2) Yesterday, I actually tried to post my defense on that same reporting thread, but the moderator wiped it out, labeling it as Spam. I ended up getting a one-day timeout, even though there wasn't any clear breakdown of the points used against me.🤔

3) All I did was copy over my arguments from post 379 on the Philosophy board within the Critique of Christianity thread. There, I demonstrated that these accusations are wildly exaggerated, factually incorrect in certain parts, and rooted entirely in personal animosity.

4) Since these two furious ladies 🙂 are working overtime to get someone banned, shouldn't the accused at least be allowed to defend themselves, right?

And honestly, that’s just Spam. You aren't actually saying anything new; you're just copy-pasting without contributing anything meaningful to the conversation. Dragging a massive pile of quotes from one thread to another isn't a real discussion—it's just noise.

Everyone has their own unique way of putting pen to paper, and I truly believe his style is quite distinct. But honestly, calling it Spam feels like such a stretch. If someone actually took the time to dig through his posts, looking closely at the nuances and the broader context, I suspect they’d find it incredibly rewarding. His writing is really more like a gourmet meal for those who appreciate the finer points of digital discourse. In my opinion, the people attacking him are just being intellectually lazy—they don't want to put in the mental heavy lifting and instead expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. It’s honestly quite disheartening to see how he’s being treated. He’s easily one of the most insightful contributors to our philosophical discussions. If this forum were to ban him, I think it would truly hit rock bottom.

Sandra Murphy33 said:It can't be a matter of personal animosity, considering we haven't actually met.

See how you just ramble nonsense?

It’s obvious you need to be removed from any serious discussions because you constantly Spam threads with the same repetitive, worthless, and tedious posts—you drop seven or eight comments in a row, peppered with large, bolded fonts, completely deviating from the topic. Either you're too dense to realize you've derailed the conversation into territory where it doesn't belong, or you simply don't care; you just mark your territory like a dog, desperate to link every single thought in your head back to your trivialities, your delusions, and communist crimes.

You manage to offend both the angels and the devils, yet you casually brush off every critique from other users—whether they are being well-meaning or blunt—defending yourself with endless follow-up posts as if you were the most important person in the world, or as if everyone is just waiting for you to show up and talk about yourself or "benevolently" gossip about others.
80% of your contributions are nothing more than mindless, sycophantic babbling; it isn't even functioning as a chat anymore.

You act like a CHILD—as the user Bema correctly pointed out—just running wild because there are no consequences, which is why I suggest the following:

A SPECIAL SUB-FORUM CORNER JUST FOR hiddenpuma75 where you can run wild with your hysterical, consecutive posts, and where you get to own every single thread. 😎
Your little friends could come by and bring you (emotional) sustenance like a stray dog on a leash—but you wouldn't be allowed anywhere else, since you clearly don't care whether you're a nuisance or not, and you refuse to listen to anyone, whether due to sheer stupidity or a blatant lack of respect for other users and your insistence on forcing your agenda.

How does that sound to you?
🙂

You’re getting hung up on the wording rather than the actual point. At the end of the day, we're both just anonymous voices on the internet.

I actually thought you were annoyed by hiddenpuma75's specific style—you know, the worldview, the deep dives, the hard work, and the arguments—rather than anything about him as an individual.😉

It’s pretty obvious you need to be banned from any serious discussion since you just Spam the board with the same useless, boring posts over and over again—

That might be true, but I’ve actually started most of our philosophy threads, many of which have had some fantastic engagement 🙂

For instance, I'm quite proud 🙂 of the thread

The Best of Philosophy 👍

or
Philosophy quiz

or

Philosophy of Science: Scale, Limits, and Scientific Errors 👍

or

The Philosophy of Debate, featuring the much-anticipated showdown: Žižek vs Jordan Peterson 👍

or if anyone else feels like checking them out, feel free to take a look!

so, here is what I am going to suggest:

A SPECIALIZED SUB-FORUM—just a private corner for hiddenpuma75 where you can run wild with nothing but consecutive, hysterical rants across every single thread + basically, all topics would belong to you. 😎
Your friends could drop by and bring you some "spiritual food," much like feeding a stray dog on a leash—except you wouldn't be allowed to leave, since you clearly don't care if you're being a nuisance or not, and you never really listen to anyone anyway, whether it's because you're just too dense to get it or you simply refuse to respect the other users and insist on pushing your own agenda.

What do you think of that idea?
🙂

It’s an original and funny concept, but there is one fatal flaw.

The philosophy section would end up completely deserted because you, Sigmund, Simpleton, and Ant88 would just be posting the exact same things over and over again

about how glorious communism was in the past, is now, and will be in the future,
about how pathetic religion is,
about how great life used to be back in America

and how America is just crawling with extremists lurking to attack the children of Hegel and Marx.

We'd hear all about the crimes of capitalism and the greatness of Comrade Tit. 🙂

It would honestly be incredibly dull—essentially a one-party communist philosophical system—so it's only fair that we have an opposition in the form of hiddenpuma75 and his crew. 😉

rustydrifter10 said:And honestly, that’s just Spam. You aren't actually saying anything new; you're just copy-pasting without contributing anything meaningful to the conversation. Dragging a massive pile of quotes from one thread to another isn't a real discussion—it's just noise.

Since you clearly didn't feel like reading the whole thing, I'll give you the short version.

I specifically listed posts that represent genuine, original work—stuff that involves transcribing books or actually contributing to the topic.

These are essentially the philosophical responses from Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky to Feuerbach's ideas.
There isn't even a single mention of my supposed writing on communism in there.

Besides, what kind of debate is this where communism critiques religion but refuses to engage with any criticism aimed back at communism? 🙄

From thirty thousand feet up, it’s pretty clear that my opinion doesn't even matter here.

We're looking at a total clash of worldviews—a full-blown culture war...

They try to silence anyone with a different perspective through censorship or by blowing accusations wildly out of proportion...

Notice how they don't mind when Adis Sabovic goes on a rant because he's clearly playing for their team. Plus, he's a permanent ban from this forum anyway. I don't see Sandra Murphy33 or anyone else reporting him.

It seems the only one actually bothering them is hiddenpuma75 . 😉

The real issue with hiddenpuma75 is that he’s constantly writing, starting discussions, translating, and staying active—all while wrestling with the legacy of Marx and Hegel, along with the echoes of old-school Communist Party doctrine...

Since the followers of Marx and Hegel pretty much run the philosophy department, they try to shut down any dissenting views through outright censorship.

At its core, this is just a clash of ideas that has been mischaracterized as being about hiddenpuma75's personal style.

That is the heart of the matter; the individual isn't actually the point.
I'm not here to sell anything or push an agenda.

Melissa Stewart6 actually managed to boil down the entire essence of our philosophy department in just one sentence

If hiddenpuma75 were busy mocking religions, tearing into capitalism, and waxing poetic about the "glory days" of the old communist era—just like Sandra Murphy33 and her crew seem to suggest—then he’d actually fit right in with them.

We really need to find a way to stop hiddenpuma75, because honestly, he’s just not one of us!

And that is essentially the entire "conflict" happening in the philosophy department!

Everything else is just smoke, mirrors, and linguistic gymnastics.
😉

hiddenpuma75 said:Melissa Stewart6 actually managed to boil down the entire essence of our philosophy department in just one sentence

If hiddenpuma75 were busy mocking religions, tearing into capitalism, and waxing poetic about the "glory days" of the old communist era—just like Sandra Murphy33 and her crew seem to suggest—then he’d actually fit right in with them.

We really need to find a way to stop hiddenpuma75, because honestly, he’s just not one of us!

And that is essentially the entire "conflict" happening in the philosophy department!

Everything else is just smoke, mirrors, and linguistic gymnastics.
😉

Well, I suppose you're more or less right about everything. It's just that the people carrying out the hit aren't nearly as important as the person who actually ordered it—and you aren't even pointing a finger at them. Instead, you're just standing there looking like a total mess in the middle of a crowded room. It's so obvious that even an occasional lurker on this forum, like me, can see it.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, I suppose you're more or less right about everything. It's just that the people carrying out the hit aren't nearly as important as the person who actually ordered it—and you aren't even pointing a finger at them. Instead, you're just standing there looking like a total mess in the middle of a crowded room. It's so obvious that even an occasional lurker on this forum, like me, can see it.

Honestly, at this hour, I haven't the slightest clue who you're talking about. So, why don't you introduce us to this "grand jury" of yours? You've got the judge, the prosecutor, and then there's me, sitting here in the defendant's chair.