Moderation for PDF: Edge of Science II Alternatives

Elizabeth Jackson said:And which ones are those? 🤔
Don't you think that might actually sound like an insult to some people?
I mean, if calling someone a mercenary is considered offensive (and let's be honest, we're all paid for the jobs we do; nobody is working entirely on a volunteer basis, right?), then I really don't understand how it's perfectly fine to label someone a conspiracy theorist (and to do so countless times on this specific sub-forum). 🤷

I suspect you might be getting a bit carried away, or perhaps there's a visible personal interest in why you're attacking alternative methods so aggressively.
Good grief, Jessica Morris6, have you forgotten that you are currently in the Alternative sub-forum?
If the topic on this specific board is, say, treating a certain ailment, by what logic or rule (or even what law🤦) is it considered a violation for someone to offer advice they believe to be helpful, provided it stays on topic? 🤷
Come on now, we aren't living in a totalitarian state where citizens don't have the right to express their opinions, especially regarding topics they are discussing.

Is it possible you haven't thoroughly read this:
All posts represent the opinions of their authors, not the owners of the Forum, the editorial staff, or Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (the creators of the vBulletin software). They cannot be held responsible for the content. The Forum staff works to sanction prohibited posts, though some may be overlooked or missed initially. We ask for your understanding, and if you wish to help, you are free to report any post you believe violates the rules by clicking the report icon.
...and finally, it states:
By agreeing to these rules, you may proceed with registration. If they are unacceptable to you and you do not wish to abide by them, you can return to the Forum homepage by clicking this link. Thank you for your attention, and we hope you enjoy your stay on the Forum!

There, it is all laid out for you (and everyone else), so I trust there should be no further ambiguity regarding what people are permitted to write here, or what the respective rights of users and others are on this platform.

I couldn't agree more.
And that's precisely why—given what I mentioned earlier and what was quoted—you know how this works.
Besides, you always have the ignore button.

On this forum, you have just as much right to your own perspective and opinion as anyone else.
Whether you are correct or someone else is, you'll never convince anyone by attacking them or labeling their posts as incorrect or stupid; honestly, that just comes across as a sign of weakness.
Ultimately, who is right and who isn't will be decided solely by those who choose to read, and none of us can influence that. The only thing you can really do to defend your own stance is to use solid arguments and present them decently.
Adopting a style that feels more like small-town gossip or a mob mentality certainly won't change anyone's mind. In fact, you'll probably just trigger a backlash.

Regarding everything else you wrote, I don't think I need to reiterate that you have the right to your own opinion and that nobody in the universe can strip away your subjective perception, but there's really no need to exhaust the forum with it.
I think the ignore option is perfect for you. Why not give it a try?
Why bother struggling with it?
I've actually added some of the most extreme characters to my ignore list, and I feel much better for it because I'm no longer reading the same four repetitive sentences over and over again...
I can tell you, it's a wonderful feeling—I simply refuse to waste even a shred of energy on things I consider worthless.

I noticed that too—that no one is moderating, even though they are officially listed as moderators. That's why I stopped using the report button; there's no point, it's like saying good morning to a deaf man.

Look, while we're on the subject, I could link you to dozens, if not over a hundred, posts by Plant112 (and a few others) where he directly insults users and trolls in ways that wouldn't be tolerated on any forum in the world (feel free to notify him so he can join in!), and this has been happening constantly for three and a half years without any meaningful reaction. I should also mention that on the Alternative sub-forum, the guy hasn't made a single constructive or on-topic post.
The most any of the mods have actually done is call someone out for being an idiot or acting foolishly, maybe deleting a post or handing out 20 points for breaking a sub-forum rule... or handing out a yellow card... 🤦
So, what am I supposed to take from that?
Should I just start a thread about him on the Forum and waste my precious time doing it?
Believe me, I have much more pleasant and engaging work to do than that...

Personally, I feel like things on the Alternative sub-forum functioned much better back when gargamišamel was moderating.
She was strict, and she applied her standards fairly across the board (more or less).
And every so often, someone would pull a stunt, get a card, and rack up enough points for a ban.
Except for me, of course—I've never had a single ban. 🙂

Perhaps it would be more productive to discuss this and perhaps offer some suggestions for a third moderator who might perform better over at Alternative.
Naturally, that individual would need to come from the Alternative circles and possess actual knowledge of the subject matter; otherwise, it would be just as pointless as the current situation, if not more so...
I think we can all agree that an Alternative enthusiast wouldn't be fit to moderate the medical or science sections...

We've already touched on that—that's simply your perception and your personal stance.
Someone else might see things entirely differently, or they might feel exactly the same way about your own contributions?
And then who gets lynched? 😁

I trust you'll agree that you can't just subjectively declare someone's posts illogical, inaccurate, or irrational, and then expect them to be sanctioned just because that's how you feel or because you don't particularly like them... because someone else could just as easily make that same demand regarding you.

That is precisely why Forum rules exist.
And we need moderators who will actually adhere to them and operate by them. 🙂
Believe me, if the rules were strictly enforced, there practically wouldn't be any issues, and the only people being flagged would be those rare few whose every third post out of 50,000 is already against the rules anyway. 🙂

I don't have a personal agenda. In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but only up to the point where they aren't endangering someone else.
To me, it doesn't matter if you label it "alternative." You can't hide behind a label—whatever that may be—to do things that put people's lives at risk, regardless of whether you call it alternative medicine or anything else...

Let me give you an extreme example. Imagine we were living under a fascist regime; you're a fascist, and I tell you, "You can't kill that Jewish family, it's wrong," and you snap back at me, "Good grief, we're living in a fascist state, where in the laws does it say I can't?"

(and by what law? 🤦 )

I can't recall the exact name of the statute, but there is a law stating that unqualified individuals aren't allowed to provide medical advice to the public.

I already posted this there recently. I believe the alternative/alternative medicine PDF should be a place to gather information on preventative measures for various illnesses, not a place where people claim drinking a certain juice will cure cancer.
You know, stuff like what to drink, what to eat, which diets are garbage... etc. Personally, I might actually look for those kinds of tips there more often if the threads weren't being clogged up by all this other nonsense...

Jessica Morris6 said:I don't have a personal agenda. In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but only up to the point where they aren't endangering someone else.
To me, it doesn't matter if you label it "alternative." You can't hide behind a label—whatever that may be—to do things that put people's lives at risk, regardless of whether you call it alternative medicine or anything else...

Let me give you an extreme example. Imagine we were living under a fascist regime; you're a fascist, and I tell you, "You can't kill that Jewish family, it's wrong," and you snap back at me, "Good grief, we're living in a fascist state, where in the laws does it say I can't?"

(and by what law? 🤦 )

I can't recall the exact name of the statute, but there is a law stating that unqualified individuals aren't allowed to provide medical advice to the public.

I already posted this there recently. I believe the alternative/alternative medicine PDF should be a place to gather information on preventative measures for various illnesses, not a place where people claim drinking a certain juice will cure cancer.
You know, stuff like what to drink, what to eat, which diets are garbage... etc. Personally, I might actually look for those kinds of tips there more often if the threads weren't being clogged up by all this other nonsense...

If someone, despite having access to all the facts, decides to try and treat their cancer with fruit juice, shark cartilage, bioenergy, or by visiting Ivo Pavić and praying instead of using actual medical services, that's on them. They own that choice and they deal with the consequences.

Besides, official stances on whether certain foods are "good" or "bad" change all the time anyway. One day lard is the villain, then butter is the enemy, and suddenly margarine is the only way to go—only for them to turn around later and show that margarine might actually be the worst of the three.

In my humble opinion, moderators shouldn't be playing judge and jury over whether someone's opinion is "correct." Their job is to make sure the conversation stays civilized. At the end of the day, people have the right to hold views that others might completely disagree with.

Matthew Castillo5 said:If someone, despite having access to all the facts, decides to try and treat their cancer with fruit juice, shark cartilage, bioenergy, or by visiting Ivo Pavić and praying instead of using actual medical services, that's on them. They own that choice and they deal with the consequences.

Besides, official stances on whether certain foods are "good" or "bad" change all the time anyway. One day lard is the villain, then butter is the enemy, and suddenly margarine is the only way to go—only for them to turn around later and show that margarine might actually be the worst of the three.

In my humble opinion, moderators shouldn't be playing judge and jury over whether someone's opinion is "correct." Their job is to make sure the conversation stays civilized. At the end of the day, people have the right to hold views that others might completely disagree with.

And look, that’s fine for adults making their own mistakes. But the real issue starts when these moral monstrosities keep trumpeting the idea that vaccines are dangerous despite overwhelming evidence, which basically puts children's lives at risk through proxy.

The alternative sub-forum shouldn't—meaning, it really shouldn't—become a breeding ground for anti-vax hysteria. You can't help the idiots or the lunatics, but we should at least try to protect the blessed fools from parents who will happily refuse to vaccinate their kids just because they read some nonsense online! Or because it's posted on some massive internet board! There's even this one guy who claims a nurse told him that none of the doctors vaccinate their own children—now, why on earth would anyone think that's true?!?!?!?!!!!!!one

urbangull90

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

At the end of the day, whether someone actually took offense or not is almost secondary; it doesn't really depend on what one person supposedly said to another. I suppose I should mention that I’ve submitted it. So, I was just wondering... are we actually talking about the opposing side here? received Just exactly the way that miserable sender was hoping it would happen.
The rules actually provide a much more precise definition of what constitutes an insult, though even then, I suppose it’s still a bit of a gray area in practice. That doesn't change anything regarding what was mentioned above.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

You’re just spinning the same old yarn again. 🥱
I hear you, and I truly respect your right to have your own opinion—no one is trying to take that away from you or deny it. However, I think it’s worth trying to understand that... The second one. It’s possible they think so, I suppose. It’s a completely different story. And that’s just my two cents on the matter. It feels like they act as if they possess every single right under the sun. I suspect that what you're writing might be a bit too deep for them to really wrap their heads around—it’s probably all just a little too complex for their tastes. 🤷
Whether a claim is considered proven or unproven, whether it’s perceived as foolish or coherent, or whether it feels grounded in reality—it really all comes down to how you frame the argument. I guess it’s less about the raw data itself and more about the lens through which we choose to view it. Maybe we overcomplicate things by searching for absolute certainty when, in truth, most of what we debate is just a matter of perspective. It's a bit of a gray area, isn't it? That doesn't really hold any water as an argument, if you ask me. It’s just not a valid point at all.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
Of course they do. Everyone carries their own perspective, their own set of opinions, and—if you'll permit me to say so—their own personal convictions. Perhaps. I’ve been digging into the data, and honestly, once you look at the actual facts and arguments, the supposed "success rate" of that self-proclaimed expert from XYZ starts to fall apart. When you run the numbers, their track record fails to hold up for at least 6 out of every 23 patients they treat. It’s also worth noting that this individual isn't even listed among any of the recognized professionals in the field.

Perhaps. It really comes down to knowledge.

And she's entitled to all her other rights, just like anyone else in this country.
What's going on? I suppose we could go around in circles debating the specific points, but honestly, I think we’re missing the forest for the trees here. It feels like we're just throwing arguments at a wall to see what sticks, rather than actually addressing the core issue. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I suspect that if we really dig into the substance of what's being said, the logic starts to feel a bit thin. It's hard to build a solid case when the foundation itself seems so shaky, don't you think? As far as those go, I suppose it’s actually quite alright if someone happens to have them, regardless of what kind they might be.
The absolute worst part is when they aren't even around to witness it, yet they somehow manage to repeat the exact same mistake a hundred times over.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I suppose it all depends on whose perspective you're looking from regarding who gets labeled as an expert... for instance, vera Čudina was championed by certain people as an authority, much like how braco from Srebrnjak was
. And speaking of braco, I actually met a woman once who insisted—and she gave me a incredibly detailed account of how—that braco literally saved her child's life. She told me straight up that anyone calling him a fraud is just being foolish.
To be honest, until that conversation, I had pretty much pegged him as a total con artist... I haven't exactly changed my mind about him entirely, but I'm fairly certain she wasn't lying, mainly because I know the whole story down to the smallest detail.
There's no scam here, no money involved, no confusion, and no tall tales; it’s as clear as day and fully verified.
He helped a child.
Some might find that hard to swallow, but I'm not writing this to provoke anyone. I still don't hold braco in particularly high regard (mostly due to the lack of concrete, real-world evidence), but I'm simply laying out the facts to show that subjective perception and personal experience often carry much more weight than anything else...

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

Whew, that gave me a bit of a scare. 🙂 There’s already someone else making similar, rather hopeless and bitter threats over in the cancer treatment thread.
Actually, looking at the link provided, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that what I mentioned violates any rules.
It seems to be nothing more than a clumsy attempt to twist someone else's words through insinuation.

Take another look at what I actually asked:

Elizabeth Jackson said:And which ones are those? 🤔
Don't you think that might actually sound like an insult to some people?
I mean, if calling someone a mercenary is considered offensive (and let's be honest, we're all paid for the jobs we do; nobody is working entirely on a volunteer basis, right?), then I really don't understand how it's perfectly fine to label someone a conspiracy theorist (and to do so countless times on this specific sub-forum). 🤷

I suspect you might be getting a bit carried away, or perhaps there's a visible personal interest in why you're attacking alternative methods so aggressively.
Good grief, Jessica Morris6, have you forgotten that you are currently in the Alternative sub-forum?
If the topic on this specific board is, say, treating a certain ailment, by what logic or rule (or even what law🤦) is it considered a violation for someone to offer advice they believe to be helpful, provided it stays on topic? 🤷
Come on now, we aren't living in a totalitarian state where citizens don't have the right to express their opinions, especially regarding topics they are discussing.

Is it possible you haven't thoroughly read this:
All posts represent the opinions of their authors, not the owners of the Forum, the editorial staff, or Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (the creators of the vBulletin software). They cannot be held responsible for the content. The Forum staff works to sanction prohibited posts, though some may be overlooked or missed initially. We ask for your understanding, and if you wish to help, you are free to report any post you believe violates the rules by clicking the report icon.
...and finally, it states:
By agreeing to these rules, you may proceed with registration. If they are unacceptable to you and you do not wish to abide by them, you can return to the Forum homepage by clicking this link. Thank you for your attention, and we hope you enjoy your stay on the Forum!

There, it is all laid out for you (and everyone else), so I trust there should be no further ambiguity regarding what people are permitted to write here, or what the respective rights of users and others are on this platform.

I couldn't agree more.
And that's precisely why—given what I mentioned earlier and what was quoted—you know how this works.
Besides, you always have the ignore button.

On this forum, you have just as much right to your own perspective and opinion as anyone else.
Whether you are correct or someone else is, you'll never convince anyone by attacking them or labeling their posts as incorrect or stupid; honestly, that just comes across as a sign of weakness.
Ultimately, who is right and who isn't will be decided solely by those who choose to read, and none of us can influence that. The only thing you can really do to defend your own stance is to use solid arguments and present them decently.
Adopting a style that feels more like small-town gossip or a mob mentality certainly won't change anyone's mind. In fact, you'll probably just trigger a backlash.

Regarding everything else you wrote, I don't think I need to reiterate that you have the right to your own opinion and that nobody in the universe can strip away your subjective perception, but there's really no need to exhaust the forum with it.
I think the ignore option is perfect for you. Why not give it a try?
Why bother struggling with it?
I've actually added some of the most extreme characters to my ignore list, and I feel much better for it because I'm no longer reading the same four repetitive sentences over and over again...
I can tell you, it's a wonderful feeling—I simply refuse to waste even a shred of energy on things I consider worthless.

I noticed that too—that no one is moderating, even though they are officially listed as moderators. That's why I stopped using the report button; there's no point, it's like saying good morning to a deaf man.

Look, while we're on the subject, I could link you to dozens, if not over a hundred, posts by Plant112 (and a few others) where he directly insults users and trolls in ways that wouldn't be tolerated on any forum in the world (feel free to notify him so he can join in!), and this has been happening constantly for three and a half years without any meaningful reaction. I should also mention that on the Alternative sub-forum, the guy hasn't made a single constructive or on-topic post.
The most any of the mods have actually done is call someone out for being an idiot or acting foolishly, maybe deleting a post or handing out 20 points for breaking a sub-forum rule... or handing out a yellow card... 🤦
So, what am I supposed to take from that?
Should I just start a thread about him on the Forum and waste my precious time doing it?
Believe me, I have much more pleasant and engaging work to do than that...

Personally, I feel like things on the Alternative sub-forum functioned much better back when gargamišamel was moderating.
She was strict, and she applied her standards fairly across the board (more or less).
And every so often, someone would pull a stunt, get a card, and rack up enough points for a ban.
Except for me, of course—I've never had a single ban. 🙂

Perhaps it would be more productive to discuss this and perhaps offer some suggestions for a third moderator who might perform better over at Alternative.
Naturally, that individual would need to come from the Alternative circles and possess actual knowledge of the subject matter; otherwise, it would be just as pointless as the current situation, if not more so...
I think we can all agree that an Alternative enthusiast wouldn't be fit to moderate the medical or science sections...

We've already touched on that—that's simply your perception and your personal stance.
Someone else might see things entirely differently, or they might feel exactly the same way about your own contributions?
And then who gets lynched? 😁

I trust you'll agree that you can't just subjectively declare someone's posts illogical, inaccurate, or irrational, and then expect them to be sanctioned just because that's how you feel or because you don't particularly like them... because someone else could just as easily make that same demand regarding you.

That is precisely why Forum rules exist.
And we need moderators who will actually adhere to them and operate by them. 🙂
Believe me, if the rules were strictly enforced, there practically wouldn't be any issues, and the only people being flagged would be those rare few whose every third post out of 50,000 is already against the rules anyway. 🙂

So, please, feel free to quote or link the specific part of the law that is violated when someone in an alternative medicine thread offers advice they consider useful and relevant to the topic?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I think you're mistaken, though you actually admitted that yourself in your very second sentence.
I am perfectly free to say whatever I want.>
Provided, of course, that I don't break any US Laws, make threats, or harass anyone.
There you have it.
If my freedom of speech bothers someone, then I suppose their only options are to suffer in silence or file a lawsuit and let the legal institutions handle it... 🥱

Jessica Morris6 said:I don't have a personal agenda. In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but only up to the point where they aren't endangering someone else.
To me, it doesn't matter if you label it "alternative." You can't hide behind a label—whatever that may be—to do things that put people's lives at risk, regardless of whether you call it alternative medicine or anything else...

Let me give you an extreme example. Imagine we were living under a fascist regime; you're a fascist, and I tell you, "You can't kill that Jewish family, it's wrong," and you snap back at me, "Good grief, we're living in a fascist state, where in the laws does it say I can't?"

(and by what law? 🤦 )

I can't recall the exact name of the statute, but there is a law stating that unqualified individuals aren't allowed to provide medical advice to the public.

I already posted this there recently. I believe the alternative/alternative medicine PDF should be a place to gather information on preventative measures for various illnesses, not a place where people claim drinking a certain juice will cure cancer.
You know, stuff like what to drink, what to eat, which diets are garbage... etc. Personally, I might actually look for those kinds of tips there more often if the threads weren't being clogged up by all this other nonsense...

I agree with that. But I’m constantly discussing alternatives here, and nobody seems to have an issue with that. 🤷
The reality is that users on this Reddit often try to help one another by sharing methods that are concrete, thoroughly vetted, and proven through practical experience, yet for some reason, you are insisting (or perhaps assuming) that doing so somehow endangers lives. 🤦

Jessica Morris6 said:I don't have a personal agenda. In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but only up to the point where they aren't endangering someone else.
To me, it doesn't matter if you label it "alternative." You can't hide behind a label—whatever that may be—to do things that put people's lives at risk, regardless of whether you call it alternative medicine or anything else...

Let me give you an extreme example. Imagine we were living under a fascist regime; you're a fascist, and I tell you, "You can't kill that Jewish family, it's wrong," and you snap back at me, "Good grief, we're living in a fascist state, where in the laws does it say I can't?"

(and by what law? 🤦 )

I can't recall the exact name of the statute, but there is a law stating that unqualified individuals aren't allowed to provide medical advice to the public.

I already posted this there recently. I believe the alternative/alternative medicine PDF should be a place to gather information on preventative measures for various illnesses, not a place where people claim drinking a certain juice will cure cancer.
You know, stuff like what to drink, what to eat, which diets are garbage... etc. Personally, I might actually look for those kinds of tips there more often if the threads weren't being clogged up by all this other nonsense...

Please, find that specific law and post it here—show us exactly how someone participating in a thread about alternative wellness, while sharing advice they intend to be helpful and which has been repeatedly validated by people who have actually recovered, is somehow violating the law!
I'll be waiting! 🙂

Jessica Morris6 said:I don't have a personal agenda. In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but only up to the point where they aren't endangering someone else.
To me, it doesn't matter if you label it "alternative." You can't hide behind a label—whatever that may be—to do things that put people's lives at risk, regardless of whether you call it alternative medicine or anything else...

Let me give you an extreme example. Imagine we were living under a fascist regime; you're a fascist, and I tell you, "You can't kill that Jewish family, it's wrong," and you snap back at me, "Good grief, we're living in a fascist state, where in the laws does it say I can't?"

(and by what law? 🤦 )

I can't recall the exact name of the statute, but there is a law stating that unqualified individuals aren't allowed to provide medical advice to the public.

I already posted this there recently. I believe the alternative/alternative medicine PDF should be a place to gather information on preventative measures for various illnesses, not a place where people claim drinking a certain juice will cure cancer.
You know, stuff like what to drink, what to eat, which diets are garbage... etc. Personally, I might actually look for those kinds of tips there more often if the threads weren't being clogged up by all this other nonsense...

But why shouldn't they write about it if it genuinely helps someone and if it has been proven effective through real-world application? 🤔
Isn't that, first and foremost, the entire reason this sub-forum even exists—to offer a hand to people, especially those whom mainstream medicine failed to help and who are searching for support through alternative methods because the medical establishment has quite literally written them off and labeled them incurable?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Look, by that logic, it isn't insulting to call someone ignorant either (after all, nobody knows everything, right?).
But if there is a general body of knowledge that is well-known—where phenomena have been researched, documented, verified, and confirmed by people who have dedicated years to studying them—and then some random person from a forum shows up and starts posting YouTube videos from some pseudo-experts (you just have to do a little digging on the person to see the truth) claiming that things are being covered up... what do you call that person? First off, they aren't an expert themselves (if they were, they'd be presenting their own data instead of a YouTube clip). Second, we all know how easy it is to make money from a certain number of likes on YouTube. Third, these YouTube personalities usually use the story to sell their books, organized trips, or lectures. But our friend here, who swallows all of this without a second thought, will come here to an online forum to argue and insist that these are all conspiracies orchestrated by "someone" against "something," even though they don't actually understand the first thing about either! That person really is a conspiracy theorist (because they lack any practical experience) who has basically manufactured their own conspiracy based on half-truths.

Of course I do! I have my own perspective, my own opinions, and (if you'll allow me) perhaps even some knowledge, facts, and arguments that debunk the "success rate" of 6 out of 23 patients claimed by some self-proclaimed expert from XYZ, who can't even be found on any legitimate professional registry.
I'm not exactly old, but I certainly remember some of our local "experts" (herbalists) who failed miserably after being hailed as absolute authorities (like d. Plečko, for example).

So, let’s talk about this whole situation regarding the new US Law. Honestly, I feel like I need to sit down and really dive into this one because there is so much to unpack! And we aren't just talking about a little misdemeanor here, either. If all the specific legal criteria are met, this actually qualifies as a felony, which carries the heavy weight of several years in federal prison.

Look, you aren't living in a total dictatorship, but you aren't exactly living in total anarchy either where you can just say whatever random nonsense pops into your head without consequence. At its core, the whole foundation of democracy is built on freedom of speech, but... Just putting my own neck on the line here! It honestly feels like everyone is just skipping right over this and completely forgetting about it! ☕

Exactly! Honestly, Reddit isn't some kind of shield for people spewing nonsense or trying to egg others on to commit actual crimes. If someone is out there breaking the law, this platform will absolutely hand over any personal info to the proper authorities. Seriously, if you take a second to actually look up how US Law works, you’ll see everything is perfectly above board. Plus, if you check the general rules, it's pretty clearly stated that posting anything that constitutes a criminal offense is strictly prohibited, right?

Ignoring them just doesn't work when you're dealing with people who openly brag about using multiple accounts to post. Honestly, that’s like trying to spin a saw blade the wrong way—it’s completely backwards! This is exactly why we have moderators in the first place. They should be cleaning up those fake sign-ups from the jump and making sure everyone actually respects the rules. If someone keeps breaking them, they should just get a permanent ban and be done with it. Simple as that. But here? It’s a joke. This guy is basically just replying to himself, and even after being reported, they only end up deleting three of his posts. They give him a temporary "clone account" suspension, and what does he do? He just keeps right on typing...
So, let's talk about the elephant in the room—the guy who actually prompted this whole discussion. I was looking back at his history, and it’s honestly wild: out of nearly 5,000 posts, more than 4,000 of them are just straight-up trolling, spamming, going off-topic, or being outright rude. And he does it across pretty much every single subject you can imagine! The craziest part? It feels like nobody is doing anything to stop it. He basically hijacks every thread he touches, turning the conversation toward himself or just derailing it entirely. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely other people who act like this too, but he is the absolute extreme case. Honestly, if we wanted to get these boards back to normal and actually keep things on-topic, we’d probably need to go in and wipe away his last 2,000 posts just to clear the air. It's getting a bit ridiculous!

Honestly, even hitting that "ignore" button doesn't really solve the problem. You see this classic pattern all the time in threads about stuff like archaeology or global warming. Take Noah Diaz, for example—he probably has over 40 people on his ignore list by now. He’s basically been running this weird little one-man show for years, just dropping links to articles that completely contradict the very point he's trying to make right in the headline and summary! But here's the kicker: since almost nobody actually responds to him (or maybe they just pretend they didn't see it, which might be a psychological defense mechanism at this point!), he just keeps posting and posting. No commentary, no actual discussion, no back-and-forth... nothing. How else are you supposed to describe it besides straight-up spamming?
And so on, and so forth... Just the same old story, over and over again!

When the people who are actually supposed to be handling this don't step up, I guess the fallout just lands right here instead. Honestly, it’s becoming pretty obvious that I'm not just being hyper-focused on one specific person; the exact same pattern keeps popping up across all sorts of different threads—even in topics where I haven't even posted once! It’s the same story, over and over again, involving the same individual.

And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. It’s a bummer, honestly.

Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the current mess actually started with her, because she basically gave a free pass to people being rude and insulting others, acting like it was all just one big joke. She even managed to dodge criticism by claiming this section is just for "alternative" views anyway, and if anyone wants to talk strictly scientific stuff, they should just head over to the mainstream science boards.

Right now, we honestly just need any decent moderator to step in, sweep the place clean, and get everything following the rules again. After that, we should probably have two: one for the science side and one for the alternative side. You really can't have one without the other. Real "alternative" thought should be an extension of science, not something completely detached from it. Without science, there's no alternative, and vice versa.
Plus, you've got those pseudo-alternative types who act like they could pour granite into wooden molds or try to drill through ancient Egypt using nothing but a handheld power drill and a screwdriver.

If anyone finds a post where I'm rambling off-topic without any actual arguments, I have absolutely no problem with them deleting my post or issuing a sanction. But that goes for everyone, equally. And I truly believe I stick to topics I actually know something about or have studied. Even when people claim certain things are "impossible," it’s usually not that hard to explain—even in very simple terms. The issue arises when people just flat-out say "it's not like that" without providing a single argument. Okay, fine, but *how* is it different then? They never have an answer. And that's where the whole thing falls apart.

Honestly, I’d much rather read five high-quality posts a day than sift through 500 pieces of absolute garbage scattered everywhere—especially when you end up skipping over something genuinely great just because some idiot decided to vent their frustrations on the internet.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

Matthew Castillo5 said:If someone, despite having access to all the facts, decides to try and treat their cancer with fruit juice, shark cartilage, bioenergy, or by visiting Ivo Pavić and praying instead of using actual medical services, that's on them. They own that choice and they deal with the consequences.

Besides, official stances on whether certain foods are "good" or "bad" change all the time anyway. One day lard is the villain, then butter is the enemy, and suddenly margarine is the only way to go—only for them to turn around later and show that margarine might actually be the worst of the three.

In my humble opinion, moderators shouldn't be playing judge and jury over whether someone's opinion is "correct." Their job is to make sure the conversation stays civilized. At the end of the day, people have the right to hold views that others might completely disagree with.

👍

Matthew Castillo5 said:If someone, despite having access to all the facts, decides to try and treat their cancer with fruit juice, shark cartilage, bioenergy, or by visiting Ivo Pavić and praying instead of using actual medical services, that's on them. They own that choice and they deal with the consequences.

Besides, official stances on whether certain foods are "good" or "bad" change all the time anyway. One day lard is the villain, then butter is the enemy, and suddenly margarine is the only way to go—only for them to turn around later and show that margarine might actually be the worst of the three.

In my humble opinion, moderators shouldn't be playing judge and jury over whether someone's opinion is "correct." Their job is to make sure the conversation stays civilized. At the end of the day, people have the right to hold views that others might completely disagree with.

The mods don't even bother following basic Reddit rules. We've complained about it multiple times, but nothing changes. To them, ad hominem attacks are just standard procedure.

Here are a few recent examples:

You’re lying persistently and rudely.

Liar.

You're lying, you're [redacted], and you're protected by this site's moderation.

We're assuming those who deny AGW are just demagogic liars, hypocrites, and egomaniacs. Or at best, idiots.

You're lying. You're lying. You're lying.

Elizabeth Jackson said:I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

👍

That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Elizabeth Jackson said:I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

👍

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

Elizabeth Jackson said:I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

👍

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Elizabeth Jackson said:I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

👍

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Elizabeth Jackson said:I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

👍

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Elizabeth Jackson said:I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

👍

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

Elizabeth Jackson said:I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

👍

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

Elizabeth Jackson said:I honestly think we’re going to have a hard time making any real progress if we keep going like this. If you feel entitled to constantly dismissiveley label someone else's points as "nonsensical," then I suppose everyone else has that same right when it comes to critiquing yours. It's only fair, really.
And just like that, we find ourselves spinning in circles again. At this rate, I suppose we could keep running in place for another twenty years before anything actually changes.
Look, I’m just trying to get you to understand that... The whole point of this forum is to provide a space where we can actually sit down, hash things out, and exchange ideas.
I’d suggest taking some time to actually read through the rules. If you find yourself disagreeing with something or if there's an issue you can't get past, maybe just reach out to the administrator directly to get it sorted out.

Of course they’ll deliver. Honestly, just look—they're already on their way. 🙂
By the way, it’s going to be pretty much impossible for them to provide any personal details, mainly because nobody on this Reddit thread has actually shared any. 🐔
If you provide an IP address along with any similar data—which, let’s be honest, anyone with even a modicum of tech savvy could easily mask anyway—then the authorities might actually show up at your door, provided they have legitimate cause and sufficient evidence to justify it.
A They just don't have them. Because, honestly, if things were going to happen, they probably would have happened by now..
I don't believe there's a single precedent for this in the history of the Reddit community.
Or perhaps you have one in mind?

There are certain staff members on Reddit who handle those kinds of concerns.
I suppose if it were to happen... Is this actually a criminal offense, or just something that falls under civil law?I mean, honestly, wouldn't these kinds of threads—and frankly, subforums like this one—not even exist if they hadn't been permitted from the very beginning? It feels like we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the rules hadn't allowed it in the first place, right?
That would imply that the moderators, supermoderators, and administrators themselves... Right from the get-go, they are flagrantly violating US Law in ways that are honestly hard to even put into words.
Or maybe it's just you. I suppose I should just stand my ground on this one. Who is it that, among all the moderators, supermods, and even the admins themselves, manages to spot something that everyone else seems to have completely missed?

I honestly wouldn't even bother getting involved in that. I haven't come across any information like that before, and frankly, I don't think it's really my cup of tea either.
I’ve noticed a few rather naive, dim-witted clones popping up lately. I went ahead and reported them, and they’ve since been banned—specifically in those threads regarding cancer treatments and raw food diets. And then, to top it all off, my own follower, Biljka112, actually had the nerve to accuse me of running a clone myself just the other day. 🎉

Whether people choose to put him on ignore is really just their prerogative as users here—it’s a personal matter and part of their right to manage their own experience on the platform.
I suppose I have three of them myself.
Regarding everything else, I’m not a moderator. And frankly, neither are you.

Look, I’m not trying to spam here. If he encounters people whose arguments just don't make any sense to him, why shouldn't he just hit the ignore button? He should be free to write whatever he wants, provided he isn't breaking the site rules or US Law. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

She made a perfectly valid point, actually. 👍
Let’s be realistic here—you can't even bring up an alternative on the platform without risking getting hit with a partial ban. Right away..
Well, there you have it. It seems like they’re handing out those 100-point cards just because... well, I guess it's just how things work now. It feels a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Maybe there's some logic behind it that I'm missing, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like they're just giving them away. Bullying.So, what exactly are we talking about here?Which rule exactly is being violated here?

Where does he get the authority to justify a penalty that massive? We’re talking about a 100-point deduction here, and it feels like there was a very clear, deliberate intention to ensure the user gets banned immediately.

And to me and the rest of the folks on the forum, Biljka112. Well, 100 X just went ahead and called us all mindless and foolish, and honestly? He doesn't get a single thing in return for that attitude.
If this alternative sub ever adopted rules like these and had moderators this strict, I’d give you one shot at guessing how long the trolls and the skeptics would actually last—those people who don't contribute a single constructive thought to the sub and are clearly just here to attack everything we stand for?
Let's be honest here—what do you think their shelf life would be if even minor nonsense (based on a mod's subjective call, of course) resulted in an actual ban?

I’m having a hard time grasping why the alternative sub would need a moderator specifically for the "scientific" portion?
Maybe it's because someone is constantly trolling and obstructing the sub as we speak?
Given the premise (that science and alternative views complement each other), then wouldn't the science section also need an "alternative" moderator, right? ☕

I agree that the rules should be identical for everyone and strictly applied. 🙂

I agree. I deal with this myself regarding Biljka112, and I’ve dealt with it with others who ended up on my ignore list.
It's literally every single post I make that gets countered by the same four or five repetitive phrases they've either memorized or been told to parrot. They negate everything I write, yet never provide a single shred of reasoning. 🤷
In my opinion, after a few posts like that, it's clear they're just being irrational. I'd say kick them out and be done with it for good.
All problems solved.

I second that, though I suspect we’re both thinking of entirely different people. 😁

👍

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

We really ought to do some cleaning up in this thread The Earth is a flat plane because honestly, there's just too much noise from certain users... it feels like every other post is just someone being rude, spamming nonsense, or just straight-up trolling...

Honestly, I feel like we really need to go through and clean up all these old threads. It seems like there’s nobody left running the show over at the Reddit forums, so this whole discussion is basically just drifting along on its own now...

So, you might as well enjoy the ride or just let it run its course!

Noah Diaz said:The mods don't even bother following basic Reddit rules. We've complained about it multiple times, but nothing changes. To them, ad hominem attacks are just standard procedure.

Here are a few recent examples:

You’re lying persistently and rudely.

Liar.

You're lying, you're [redacted], and you're protected by this site's moderation.

We're assuming those who deny AGW are just demagogic liars, hypocrites, and egomaniacs. Or at best, idiots.

You're lying. You're lying. You're lying.

Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

Elizabeth Jackson said:And which ones are those? 🤔
Don't you think that might actually sound like an insult to some people?
I mean, if calling someone a mercenary is considered offensive (and let's be honest, we're all paid for the jobs we do; nobody is working entirely on a volunteer basis, right?), then I really don't understand how it's perfectly fine to label someone a conspiracy theorist (and to do so countless times on this specific sub-forum). 🤷

I suspect you might be getting a bit carried away, or perhaps there's a visible personal interest in why you're attacking alternative methods so aggressively.
Good grief, Jessica Morris6, have you forgotten that you are currently in the Alternative sub-forum?
If the topic on this specific board is, say, treating a certain ailment, by what logic or rule (or even what law🤦) is it considered a violation for someone to offer advice they believe to be helpful, provided it stays on topic? 🤷
Come on now, we aren't living in a totalitarian state where citizens don't have the right to express their opinions, especially regarding topics they are discussing.

Is it possible you haven't thoroughly read this:
All posts represent the opinions of their authors, not the owners of the Forum, the editorial staff, or Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (the creators of the vBulletin software). They cannot be held responsible for the content. The Forum staff works to sanction prohibited posts, though some may be overlooked or missed initially. We ask for your understanding, and if you wish to help, you are free to report any post you believe violates the rules by clicking the report icon.
...and finally, it states:
By agreeing to these rules, you may proceed with registration. If they are unacceptable to you and you do not wish to abide by them, you can return to the Forum homepage by clicking this link. Thank you for your attention, and we hope you enjoy your stay on the Forum!

There, it is all laid out for you (and everyone else), so I trust there should be no further ambiguity regarding what people are permitted to write here, or what the respective rights of users and others are on this platform.

I couldn't agree more.
And that's precisely why—given what I mentioned earlier and what was quoted—you know how this works.
Besides, you always have the ignore button.

On this forum, you have just as much right to your own perspective and opinion as anyone else.
Whether you are correct or someone else is, you'll never convince anyone by attacking them or labeling their posts as incorrect or stupid; honestly, that just comes across as a sign of weakness.
Ultimately, who is right and who isn't will be decided solely by those who choose to read, and none of us can influence that. The only thing you can really do to defend your own stance is to use solid arguments and present them decently.
Adopting a style that feels more like small-town gossip or a mob mentality certainly won't change anyone's mind. In fact, you'll probably just trigger a backlash.

Regarding everything else you wrote, I don't think I need to reiterate that you have the right to your own opinion and that nobody in the universe can strip away your subjective perception, but there's really no need to exhaust the forum with it.
I think the ignore option is perfect for you. Why not give it a try?
Why bother struggling with it?
I've actually added some of the most extreme characters to my ignore list, and I feel much better for it because I'm no longer reading the same four repetitive sentences over and over again...
I can tell you, it's a wonderful feeling—I simply refuse to waste even a shred of energy on things I consider worthless.

I noticed that too—that no one is moderating, even though they are officially listed as moderators. That's why I stopped using the report button; there's no point, it's like saying good morning to a deaf man.

Look, while we're on the subject, I could link you to dozens, if not over a hundred, posts by Plant112 (and a few others) where he directly insults users and trolls in ways that wouldn't be tolerated on any forum in the world (feel free to notify him so he can join in!), and this has been happening constantly for three and a half years without any meaningful reaction. I should also mention that on the Alternative sub-forum, the guy hasn't made a single constructive or on-topic post.
The most any of the mods have actually done is call someone out for being an idiot or acting foolishly, maybe deleting a post or handing out 20 points for breaking a sub-forum rule... or handing out a yellow card... 🤦
So, what am I supposed to take from that?
Should I just start a thread about him on the Forum and waste my precious time doing it?
Believe me, I have much more pleasant and engaging work to do than that...

Personally, I feel like things on the Alternative sub-forum functioned much better back when gargamišamel was moderating.
She was strict, and she applied her standards fairly across the board (more or less).
And every so often, someone would pull a stunt, get a card, and rack up enough points for a ban.
Except for me, of course—I've never had a single ban. 🙂

Perhaps it would be more productive to discuss this and perhaps offer some suggestions for a third moderator who might perform better over at Alternative.
Naturally, that individual would need to come from the Alternative circles and possess actual knowledge of the subject matter; otherwise, it would be just as pointless as the current situation, if not more so...
I think we can all agree that an Alternative enthusiast wouldn't be fit to moderate the medical or science sections...

We've already touched on that—that's simply your perception and your personal stance.
Someone else might see things entirely differently, or they might feel exactly the same way about your own contributions?
And then who gets lynched? 😁

I trust you'll agree that you can't just subjectively declare someone's posts illogical, inaccurate, or irrational, and then expect them to be sanctioned just because that's how you feel or because you don't particularly like them... because someone else could just as easily make that same demand regarding you.

That is precisely why Forum rules exist.
And we need moderators who will actually adhere to them and operate by them. 🙂
Believe me, if the rules were strictly enforced, there practically wouldn't be any issues, and the only people being flagged would be those rare few whose every third post out of 50,000 is already against the rules anyway. 🙂

🙂

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

Elizabeth Jackson didn't bother mentioning those posts from Rorionov's colleague either—you know, the guy who just goes straight for personal insults and brings up people's families every single time someone asks him to actually back up a claim.

briskbison55 said:Elizabeth Jackson didn't bother mentioning those posts from Rorionov's colleague either—you know, the guy who just goes straight for personal insults and brings up people's families every single time someone asks him to actually back up a claim.

Yeah, Elizabeth Jackson definitely has a knack for being incredibly selective when she wants to make a point. But hey, no worries! I’m going to try my best to give her a real, reasoned response, and then we’ll see if those arguments still hold water. 👍

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

What really trips me up about this whole situation is... why on earth wouldn't you just write a follow-up post covering what happened right before this one? Honestly, I’ve noticed you tend to be a little bit selective with the details sometimes—it feels a bit hit-or-miss. I can actually point out exactly what I mean if I look back at some of my own experiences!

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

Since you aren't even following the actual thread, it’s honestly a little hilarious that you’re trying to frame it that way! I mean, come on—looking at the stats, the person has eighty posts total, and seventy-five of them are just straight-up questions. Honestly, I’m just sitting here looking at this thread, and I can't help but notice that not a single soul has actually answered any of the questions I've posted! Not one! It feels like I'm just shouting into a void over here.Look, instead of just shutting down a thread, you could always step in and respond to one of those ridiculous Rorionov claims or assertions by throwing some fresh questions back at them. How would you even handle that? Just ignore it? If we went that route, we’d basically have to close every single topic and call it a day! You said it yourself: everyone has the right to share their opinion, no matter how out there it is, as long as they aren't breaking the rules of the Reddit community or violating US Law. But here's the kicker—what happens when someone isn't actually sharing an opinion at all? What if they're just constantly hijacking a thread, post after post, with nothing but new questions meant solely to troll? And then, to make matters worse, nobody even reacts? It's such a headache!
Ready to keep this rolling? Let's go!

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

Take a look at the post this was responding to and ask Kavaboz what on earth Noah has to do with building the pyramids in Giza. This is just his reply.

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

Look, here’s my take on what was said in that post:
I honestly feel like I’m rambling a bit here, so bear with me! But seriously, looking at how things have shifted lately, it really makes you stop and think about where we’re headed. It feels like we’ve moved so far away from the way things used to be handled, doesn't it? I was reading through some of the discussions on Reddit earlier, and it struck me how much everyone seems to be feeling this same sense of uncertainty. There’s such a huge divide between what people actually need and what the current system is providing. It’s almost like we’re all just trying to find our own little path through the chaos. I know I can get a little carried away with these deep dives, haha, but I truly believe that if we don't start looking for a real alternative, we're just going to keep spinning our wheels. We need something more substantial, something that actually works for regular people instead of just following outdated rules that don't apply to our lives anymore. Anyway, that's just my two cents! What do you guys think? Am I totally overthinking this, or are you seeing the same patterns too?

"Look, just to stop all this endless wandering through the desert and accidentally stumbling upon things buried under the sand—here’s my take on the whole situation:
You know, I was just sitting here thinking about how mind-blowing certain things are when you really dig into the math. Take the Great Pyramid, for example. It’s positioned almost exactly at the center of the Earth's landmass. When you actually crunch the numbers—looking at the total surface area of all the continents compared to the footprint of the pyramid itself—the odds of that being some kind of random fluke are basically 1 in 3,000,000,000. Honestly, it’s enough to make your head spin!"

So, look, this isn't even off-topic—it’s actually perfectly on-topic and a direct response to what was said! Though, I have to admit, my reply is really just me stepping in to correct the record: the text claimed the center of the universe was located in Prelog, when in reality, it’s clearly in Ludbreg. Since sixty minutes had already ticked by, I couldn't go back and edit my original post to fix it. Oops!

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

Calling him "pitiful" is actually a huge compliment if you think about it. Honestly, it’s way too kind! It would be much more accurate to just call him an ignorant hack, a pseudo-intellectual, or a straight-up idiot. Since the guy you're clearly siding with keeps dropping links without any actual context or explanation—now that I really think about it, maybe that's actually for the best—it's basically just blatant spamming at this point.
Because his "explanation" and his reasoning just don't add up! Why is it that whenever someone posts something, it’s almost always exactly what they predicted would happen? It’s like they have some kind of weird superpower where their posts become instant reality!So, just imagine for a second that you’re the one standing there, loudly insisting that using some random plant "X" is actually super healthy and beneficial. To back yourself up, you slap down a link claiming it’s "scientifically proven." But here’s the kicker: you were actually being pretty dense and didn't even bother to read past the headline! If you had actually clicked the link, you would have seen that the study explicitly confirms the plant is toxic, causes fruit deformities, leads to severe organ damage, and can literally be fatal. How would you react if someone called you out on that? Would you call them "pathetic"? Honestly, no—you’d probably call them an idiot! That’s exactly what happened here. His comments aren't physically hurting anyone, but they are completely debunking his own claims. And then, just a few days later, this guy drops *another* link that even more aggressively proves him wrong. What can you even say about someone like that? He either has no clue what he's talking about, or he'll just double down, get defensive, and start throwing insults. It’s honestly just sad.

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

Talking about the moderation always makes me want to push back even harder on this—especially since that link basically proves the thread isn't being moderated at all! I’ve actually reported that link to several other places too. I’ve been hanging out in this thread for five or six years now, and in that time, Noah Diaz has dropped that same link at least five times, LUN has done it a few more, and every other random newbie who wanders in just pastes it around the fifth or sixth post as "proof" of some "theory" they don't even understand themselves. They just use it to claim things "couldn't be done" or "weren't known," etc. Honestly, it’s just plain silly to keep pasting the exact same nonsense over and over again unless someone thinks the world and this entire thread only started existing the day they showed up, or if they're just intentionally trolling to start a fight just to prove a point. And Noah Diaz knows exactly what he's doing; this isn't his first rodeo, even if his ignore list keeps getting longer and longer, which means he misses replies (even though he's definitely lurking)

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

See, Ibrahim, up until this exact moment, I really thought you were a reasonable guy with a different perspective on certain things, and I figured we could actually trade ideas. But with this post, you’ve basically lowered yourself to the level of guys like Rorion—just total losers who can't even use the word "I" anymore, opting instead for "we" ("we can't view you as..."). Like, who is this "WE"? Who are you?
As for my own competence, I certainly won't take advice from someone like you. Honestly, this entire post of yours is just a messy pile of off-topic nonsense that’s clearly nothing more than a pathetic ad hominem attack. It's just as disorganized as those ridiculous posts from Rorion.

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

There you go again, writing like some sort of "royal we" one minute and then turning around and saying stuff like this the next. You really ought to take a good look in the mirror first—look at your own history, put your actual name behind every single thing you write, and try acting that way on a platform like a formal debate stage. Let's see if you can actually hold your own there if you truly believe your views are so righteous. Over there, you'd actually have to stick to a consistent stance instead of playing both sides like you do here.
Because, let me be crystal clear: based on that text above, you've come across as pretty foolish to me. And honestly, I'm going to be looking at your future posts through a very different lens now.
For me, it's not even about what is being said; I think anyone can believe whatever they want as long as they can back it up with an actual argument. What matters to me is *who* is doing the talking. Some people post all sorts of nonsense, but hey, at least they're consistent. You, on the other hand, just proved you aren't.

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

Actually, I disagree! That's how people think when they've just been spoon-fed information by someone else. People who are actually offered knowledge—where they get to decide whether to take it or leave it—don't think that way. Sure, you learn the basics of certain subjects through instruction, but the leap that separates a local handyman from a nuclear physicist lies solely in those who seek out knowledge on their own. They choose to embrace it and integrate it into their own minds without anyone forcing it down their throats. Only total nerds or mindless drones let themselves be indoctrinated. People who truly contemplate knowledge first analyze it, vet it, and then decide whether to buy in. They develop ideas, draw conclusions, verify facts, and then either discard or adopt them based on reason, experience, and their own foundation of understanding. That is the whole point of science! And honestly, the biggest clueless folks are often the ones who think they know everything. The most extreme religious fanatics are usually recent converts; the loudest nationalists are often people with zero connection to their roots; the most stubborn theorists are just ignoramuses who refuse to question the tiny bit of info they *do* have; and the worst music critics are usually guys who don't even know basic theory. That is a universal truth. Real intellectual freedom only happens once you have a solid foundation to build upon. As for those "instant experts" you see on YouTube? I call them what they are: pseudo-intellectuals, clueless hacks, and total airheads. And I stand by that.

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

See? There you go. And you were actually ready to attack me for calling a guy "pathetic." Did you even look at the post? NO. Did you check what your friend wrote—what absolute nonsense he posted? NO. And did you realize that he basically repeated his own mistake and then added a follow-up post that contradicts his own claim even more? NO.
Are you aware that if you want to call someone out, you should at least get all the facts straight first? Based on how people like Biljka, Sedmog, and others react to the Alternative threads, I can safely guess you behave the exact same way over there.
So, sorry, but the guys are absolutely right here...

Elizabeth Jackson said:Yeah, the examples you brought up are, at the very least,
pathetic.
And since we're already discussing this, here are a few others that are far
more disgraceful than the ones mentioned:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3829
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3831
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3838
So, as anyone can see—these are textbook, blatant, and outright insults.
From this individual, I could cite literally hundreds of posts like these; hundreds have been deleted, so these are just the most recent examples.
There, Noah Diaz, there are plenty of worse ones. 😁

Then again, there are milder instances than what I just listed, which fall within the repertoire of my interlocutor, Monty...
A little bit of trolling and off-topic nonsense:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=2827
What does this even have to do with the topic??
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7531
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7466
Calling a fellow user "pitiful"—I assume that's meant to be a compliment?
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=3969
And calling users idiots, or labeling their input as idiocy, must surely be an even greater compliment:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=7486 (including comments on moderation in the thread)

Look, Monty, I mean no offense, but since we're discussing rule violations and moderation, your arguments fall apart when you behave this way (I just did a quick search).
You insult people who hold different opinions, violate the site rules, and then suggest those people should be sanctioned simply because they think differently than you do.
Because of this, I just can't view you as someone competent, as it shows a very low level of conduct and tolerance.

Anyway, let's move on... there's more where that came from...

It depends, I suppose. If the method has actually been proven to work in practice, then everything changes. I mean, if it’s truly been field-tested and shown results, that’s a completely different conversation. It's one thing to talk about theories on a forum, but it's quite another when you have real-world evidence to back it up. I guess we really have to look at how it holds up under actual pressure.I definitely think I'd give that a shot.
Since the effectiveness of birch when it comes to tackling specific hair issues is pretty much widely recognized and has been proven through actual use, I suppose there isn't really much of a dilemma to be had here.
I won't dive too deeply into the specifics of how to prepare or use them right now, mostly because I wouldn't want to drift off-topic, but they really do differ from the method you described.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
It’s the same pattern I see in all my threads. Someone will drop a comment that is just fundamentally nonsensical—like suggesting you could pour molten slag at 2,200°F into a wooden mold just to create some massive 2x1x1 meter block. It’s honestly baffling.

I can only reiterate what I’ve already said regarding this whole situation—it really is the only truth worth considering. I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how they feel, provided they aren't breaking any forum rules or violating US Law in the process.
Calling someone out for saying something completely nonsensical is... well, I suppose it’s a bit of a delicate matter, isn't it? It feels like you're walking a fine line between being honest and just being unnecessarily blunt. Maybe it depends on the context, I guess, but labeling an idea as pure stupidity can definitely set a certain tone for the conversation. Now, I have to say, this is purely my own subjective take on the matter.Honestly, you could probably bet anything that the other side feels exactly the same way about your perspective, which I suppose makes debating the whole thing feel a bit pointless. 🤷
That’s exactly why having everything clearly laid out in the forum rules is such a good thing.
If they could just appoint a few moderators who actually have the guts to step up and take charge, things might finally start moving in the right direction. I guess we're still waiting for someone to actually lead. Strictly speaking. It’s really quite important to respect the rules and... I suppose we should be applying them equally to everyone. I suspect that people like this will very quickly find themselves becoming smaller than a grain of poppyseed.

As far as I can tell, if you follow the rules, there are some truly bizarre reasons why things end up being handled that way. No. I honestly feel that telling someone they’re just rambling on about nonsense—or worse, calling their thoughts complete idiocy—is inherently insulting. You see, once you start labeling someone's arguments as pure gibberish or outright stupidity, you've crossed the line into personal offense. It's more than just a disagreement at that point; it becomes an attack. It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I wasn't quite sure what you were aiming for there. If you have a specific post or some text you need me to rework, just paste it in—I'm ready to get to work. Whether you want to call him foolish, silly, a complete moron, or just an outright idiot—it doesn't really matter what label you pick. The moment you actually try to tell him that... Writing... Nonsense, foolishness, pure stupidity, and absolute idiocy... honestly, I think that’s perfectly fine.😵

It seems like almost every "opinion" we encounter is essentially built upon whatever information happens to be handed to us at the time. I guess you could say our perspectives are rarely truly our own; they’re mostly just reflections of the data points we’ve been fed. It's a bit of a cycle, really—we take what's available, process it through our own biases, and then present it as a finished thought. Maybe that's just how human cognition works, but it makes me wonder how much of what we call "conviction" is actually just a reaction to the prevailing narrative. It feels forced, almost like it was shoved into place without any real consideration for how it actually fits....I’ve been sitting here wondering lately—what exactly has been programmed into our collective memory? It’s one of those deep, existential questions that keeps me up at night, I guess. I can't help but feel like there's a certain set of narratives and "truths" that have been carefully curated and inserted into our minds, shaping how we perceive reality without us even realizing it. Maybe it's just a passing thought, but it feels like we're navigating a world built on pre-packaged perceptions.And so, we just blindly accept it as truth? We take whatever is hardwired into our collective memory and treat it as an absolute stance, a solid argument, or undeniable knowledge... without even blinking.

That’s just how it is—it's an objective fact, whether people choose to accept it or not.
At the end of the day, I suppose both my "knowledge" and yours—our entire set of stances and arguments—all stem from the same places. It’s all just a collection of things we picked up in school or college, bits and pieces from various books, whatever the media feeds us, the internet, our own lived experiences, or perhaps even just some cynical wisdom we gathered from reading *Alan Ford*. Ultimately, everything we claim to "know" or feel strongly about is built upon that specific foundation.
It feels like we’ve all fallen into that classic trap where everyone is absolutely certain they've hit the nail on the head. You’re convinced you’re right, Pero Perić is dead set in his own convictions, and I’m sitting here feeling just as certain of my own position... yet somehow, we all walk away thinking we're seeing something completely different. It’s a bit of a cycle, isn't it?
You know what I mean, right?
The fundamental issue with this forum—and I suspect it’s a problem on Reddit as well—is that everyone operates under the assumption that they hold the absolute truth. It seems to be an unspoken rule here that if you don't align perfectly with someone's worldview, you aren't just wrong; you're somehow fundamentally flawed, ignorant, or even malicious. There is this pervasive sense that anyone holding a dissenting opinion shouldn't even be allowed to participate in the conversation, let alone express a perspective that contradicts the majority consensus. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly.

It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around someone posting a YouTube link that actually contradicts their own argument... I mean, maybe they just got mixed up or something? I don't think I've ever really seen that happen before. 😁
However... YouTube is just... It feels like we're just looking at one single source of information buried in a massive pile of noise.
I suppose one of the primary sources would be, say, the standard textbooks used in our schools and universities.
We live in an era where we're practically drowning in sources and information. Honestly, there’s just an endless stream of it out there. I suppose it really falls on the individual now to filter through the noise and try to judge what’s actually factual versus what’s just nonsense. At the end of the day, maybe the only way to get any real confirmation is to see how things actually play out in practice.
In my opinion, there is perhaps nothing more futile than trying to outright deny or belittle someone else's perspective. It’s honestly one of the most counterproductive things you can do. You aren't going to win an argument that way; if anything, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. Instead of changing their mind, you’ll likely just end up digging their heels in even deeper. I’d say that isn't just a possibility—it's almost a mathematical certainty.
I’ve actually come to realize this through my own experience on Reddit. There are certain topics where I might not have been entirely certain before, but now? I feel more settled in my convictions than ever. It’s funny how that works, but honestly, it’s mostly due to the aggressive denialism coming from a small handful of miserable people. They aren't even capable of mounting a real argument; instead, they just resort to hurling insults at anyone who dares to hold a different opinion.
I know quite a few other people—there are actually a fair number of them—who have managed to achieve that level of success. It feels like we’ve hit a total counterproductive phase here. Honestly, I suspect this might actually be having the exact opposite effect of what was intended.I believe I actually touched on this exact point earlier when I was posting about the whole chemtrails situation.
So, honestly? Just go for it. The way things work. He’s absolutely brilliant, and his track record really speaks for itself. 🤣

If this case had broken out on Reddit, I suspect the trolls would have jumped all over it immediately. I suppose I could share an anecdote here, if you're interested. 😁
Actually, if that’s the case... The only case in point....and that's coming from someone, too. I was just browsing through another forum earlier.Honestly, one could argue whether it even took place at all... but fine, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it did.

So, where does that leave us? I’m struggling to see how any of that actually connects to what I originally asked you. Despite your incredibly thorough explanation, you still managed to sidestep the actual question entirely.

🙂

Oh, please... it seems like this entire army of armchair experts has nothing better to do than spend their days reading. Tens of thousands of posts... honestly, looking back at the sheer volume, it’s almost overwhelming. I guess you could say I've spent quite a bit of my life right here on these threads. I wonder about those people who spend their entire day just wandering around aimlessly. Wouldn't someone eventually accidentally bruise their ego, or perhaps more importantly, inadvertently cut right into the profits their bosses are working so hard to maintain?
If you honestly think that by taking this approach you can silence someone just because they’re posting things on an alternative site that you don't personally care for, then I suppose you're essentially tilting at windmills. You might want to be prepared, though; if anything, you'll likely just provoke them into writing even more aggressively, and then you'll really have your work cut out for you. Honestly, I don't see anything happening at all. It just feels like absolutely nothing is going to move. 😁

No, they aren't definitely following every single post. But imagine if some elderly lady from a small town in rural Kansas passes away because "Ibrahim" (or someone like him) told her on a forum to stop taking her blood pressure meds (which she heard from her daughter/granddaughter) and instead start drinking whiskey with garlic because apparently garlic lowers blood pressure. Except, that "Ibrahim" (and I’m using quotes here to specify *you*) didn't realize the poor woman had severe liver damage, so that daily shot of whiskey ended up killing her. Then, her daughter comes looking for someone to blame and accuses the "quack doctor" Ibrahim of giving dangerous advice on a message board. If that kind of thing happens a couple of times, do you really think people wouldn't come knocking on your door? Don't assume people are going to be super grateful when it comes to their loved ones. Especially in tragic circumstances.☕

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!

Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!

I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?

Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.

Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.

Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.

I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.

The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

Honestly, I don't know what to make of people who go around recommending chemotherapy and radiation as the go-to solutions for cancer. It’s actually pretty stomach-turning to read some of the things people post about those doctors and their methods.

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

Look, here’s the deal. There is a massive difference between someone being clever enough to outwit an idiot with a witty comeback that flies right over their head, and some absolute jerk using the lack of moderation as an excuse to go low. When someone decides to bring people's families into an argument just because they can't handle a simple question? Yeah, I’m not sitting here quietly taking that insult. Not a chance. I’m going to call them out loudly and clearly and tell them exactly where they can shove it. That’s how you talk at home, and that’s how you should act anywhere else, too. We are on a forum—this is supposed to be a place for exchanging ideas, having civil discussions, and backing up your opinions with actual logic. It isn't some dive bar where some drunk loser thinks he can say whatever garbage he wants just because he’s acting tough or looking for a fight. This is a community, not a brawl!

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

Look, I see where you're coming from. But when someone like that rolls up and starts acting like an expert—you know, the type who basically stopped learning anything useful after middle school and now spends their entire life feeding on random YouTube conspiracy theories—calling them exactly what they are isn't an insult. It’s just being honest! It's about calling a spade a spade, really.
A true scientist is a lifelong student who never stops learning! Science evolves every single day, and theories that seemed rock-solid yesterday might be totally different today. That’s actually the whole beauty of science! But I guess if someone treats YouTube rabbit holes and certain personalities like Zrinka K. as their only source of truth, that concept is just impossible to grasp.

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

Well, maybe you respect people like that! Personally, though, I have way more respect for those "yes-men" who are backed by verified, peer-reviewed knowledge from experts you can actually reach out to. To me, that "yes-man" status is exactly what distinguishes people with real results from those who have none. It's clear, precise, and factual. Some random "Ibrahim" on an internet forum might sound incredibly convincing to me, but please forgive me—that doesn't mean I'm going to accept him as an authority in any field. Once "Ibrahim" becomes a Dr. Mayo Clinic specialist who helped cure 2,342 lung cancer patients, or someone who fixed a stubborn wart or bad breath after eating garlic, *then* he’s an authority in my book!

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

Not for much longer... her life could get very, very complicated, very fast. That's why we have "national immunization programs" from the CDC, and just like how you need health certifications for a driver's license or specific jobs, there will be vaccination records for infectious diseases. I believe even now, you can't enter certain European countries without them..

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

So, basically, as a fisherman, I'm a murderer. Brilliant logic there! 😵 By the way, when you chop up a cycle or a salad, you're just as much a murderer. I don't think you view yourself differently in those cases. Or when it comes to radishes or microbes, where you're actually a mass destroyer... see, we can actually have a conversation like this!

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

Honestly, I have zero issues when it comes to watching exactly how my food is produced. In fact, I actually love it! There’s nothing like heading out to catch some fish, cleaning them myself, and then firing up the grill to cook them. It’s just more rewarding that way. Plus, I make it a point to head out to the local county fair almost every single year. I always get right in the thick of things, helping out with the sausage making or prepping the pork cracklings—it’s hard work, but man, is it worth it!
So, what's the big deal? You could just pull up a chair right next to me while everything is cooking! I mean, imagine that incredible aroma filling up the kitchen... mmm, just thinking about it makes my mouth water. But hey, I guess there'd be a catch, wouldn't there? Only, the problem wouldn't be mine—it would definitely be yours!

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

Do you really want me to drop the link where this "genius" actually pulls it off? Seriously, Ibrahim, look at your buddy here...

LINK 1.

LINK 2.

Do you think we need to grab a few more?

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

You’re basically digging your own grave in just five sentences—short, sweet, and devastating. You claim to stand for one thing, but then you go and write something completely different, sometimes even crossing the line into straight-up hostility!
Look, like I said before, you’ve got to get your own house in order before you start trying to critique everyone else. And honestly, I wasn't suggesting anything or putting words in your mouth—you wrote this yourself!

Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.

I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.

Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.

Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?

That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.

Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.

Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?

Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.

When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.

Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.

A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.

Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.

On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉

I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁

Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂

Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂

From what I can gather, he’s just hunting for those actual FACTS. Saying that maybe 5 out of 2,341,653 people were cured of cancer by drinking carrot juice isn't a fact—it's just a statistical glitch.
Now, if 4,536 out of 5,233 people had a positive reaction, extended their lives, improved their quality of life, or beat some form of tumor, and if that was actually PUBLISHED UNDER A REAL NAME then we'd be talking about a fact. As it stands, this is just "old wives' tales" territory, and that's exactly how it should be treated.
If a method actually works, then stand behind it! Put your name on it and take the money, the credit, or whatever else comes with it. But if it doesn't work, you can't claim it's real—especially when the only "proof" offered is some YouTube video from a random "expert in rural Nebraska." Sorry, but that’s just nonsense.

I’m calling on the mods to step in and deal with Rorion’s absolute meltdown in this thread about flat earth theory. On top of everything else, he’s now bringing my mother into this and accusing me of being sacrilegious just because I questioned him. He’s basically peddling blatant antisemitism following one of his incredibly shady comments regarding the New York Times.

If it makes you feel any better, you’re definitely not alone in this. Everywhere he shows up, he’s just causing trouble—constantly bringing up people's families, derailing conversations, trolling, and jumping into threads just to ruin the vibe. It’s pretty obvious he knows he can get away with it because, for some reason, nobody ever holds him accountable. He’s basically just an aggressive guy with zero substance, totally obsessed with his own little vendettas... and honestly, it’s only happening because he’s allowed to keep doing it. 👎

It also looks like there aren't really any active mods left on the alternative board. Batkol has stepped back, and Begemotice hasn't been seen in over ten days... so at this point, I'm worried there's absolutely no one left to handle reports or keep things moderated.

The begemotica is basically the Kolinda alternativa! 👍

Can someone in charge give us an update on when the moderation team might actually get back to work?

The PDF section has turned into a total dumping ground.