Mod is lying

Look, I already laid this out on the thread—you can quote someone, fine, but you better make it crystal clear exactly which part you’re responding to. Otherwise, it looks like you're just twisting their words to suit your own agenda, and I won't have it. I told everyone upfront that I'd be scrubbing posts like that, and I have—I've already deleted a few without handing out any warnings or strikes. Case closed.

The moderator is straight-up lying here—just because I called him out on his nonsense.
Look, if you’re actually engaging in a debate, you don't just harp on the first point—you follow the flow of the argument. The moderator didn't hide that initial part because they knew damn well there was zero ambiguity in what I was saying. And yeah, here comes the caps lock again: I DID NOT TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT. Suggesting otherwise is a straight-up, shameless lie.

A colleague's got a comment like this:
Statement A
Statement B
Conclusion C

I’m quoting Statement B—saying I don't agree. Then the commenter gets all worked up, starts picking a fight, and tries to spin it like I'm just taking things out of context. Like, hello? Throughout the whole argument, I kept pointing out multiple times that I am strictly talking about Statement B and that I think it's wrong. Period.
Let the mod show me the exact post where I supposedly broke the rules or took something out of context. Go ahead.

Two posts I quoted and commented on—that’s where this whole mess kicked off.

I can't believe some people still fall for this garbage—it’s honestly embarrassing. You see these "experts" coming out of nowhere with their half-baked theories, acting like they actually know how the legal system works. Newsflash: they don't. They just love the sound of their own voices. The DOJ isn't going to just roll over because some amateur with a keyboard thinks they found a loophole. It doesn't work like that. It’s all much more complicated, and frankly, most of you wouldn't understand the nuance even if it hit you in the face. Stop looking for conspiracies where there aren't any. It's pathetic. Just stick to the facts and stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense.

My take? It’s clear—I cited the exact part I disagree with. Nothing was taken out of context here.

First post where I’m making it clear—I’m only addressing one specific case here (out of the two mentioned in the original comment). So, let me be crystal clear right out of the gate: I am not taking anything out of context.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this—it’s honestly embarrassing at this point. You look at the data and it's right there in plain sight, yet half the crowd wants to ignore reality just to stay comfortable. It’s not rocket science. The DOJ isn't going to step in and save you if you keep making these kinds of calls. You have to be smart about how you handle this stuff. If you don't follow the logic, you're basically just shouting into the void. Anyway, enough of that. I'm done repeating myself to people who clearly aren't listening. Conclusion C

Second post where I'm AGAIN explaining—to the second commenter here—that I’m only addressing one of the two cases mentioned in the original post.

And then they go ahead and wipe my posts—where I’m literally just saying I'm commenting on ONLY one of those two cases. ABSOLUTE JOKE.
I’m calling out the mod here—show me the damn post where I supposedly mashed different threads together just to twist my words.

It’s honestly pathetic that I have to manually reconstruct this entire timeline myself—the moderator clearly doesn't have a clue what they're doing.

The mods are totally ignoring why they let posts fly where people are straight-up insulting me—calling me a troll and all that—and labeling my actual statements as "idiotic" without any consequences at all. But the second I call someone's take stupid—which is a way more polite way of putting it, by the way—I get hit with a ban. Make it make sense.
I bet our "objective" moderator is just gonna conveniently skip over that part of the argument.
The mod can cry about my caps lock all they want—I only used them because this guy is out here straight-up lying just so he can skim through things. He barely even read 10% of my comment anyway, so it’s not like I’m dumping a whole essay in all caps just to be annoying. He just needs some excuse to act high and mighty. The bottom line? His moderation here is garbage. He’s clearly biased, which he proved by jumping into the thread not as a mod, but as just another guy throwing baseless attacks at the Secretary.
It’s a joke—honestly, it’s pathetic how they just lock the whole thread after posting their own comment, just so nobody can swoop in with a counter-argument. Total coward move.
Moderator—keep it fair and apply the same damn rules to everyone here. No favorites.

If the moderators actually did their jobs objectively and stayed neutral, I wouldn't even have to deal with this whole moderation mess or all the damn caps lock.

Oh, come on now, you're totally taking things out of context here...

You just grab one sentence from one post, then another sentence from a completely different post...

And then—as if that’s enough—you decide what’s valid without offering a single actual argument. So, basically, you just declare your own opinions to be "facts" and expect them to be treated like axioms. It's a bold strategy.

Your only real move seems to be constantly leaning on the Department of Justice, even though it’s been FACTUALLY demonstrated multiple times that the DOJ doesn't actually follow the job description laid out by law... so yeah, there's some pretty legitimate reason to doubt their impartiality.

Plus, you're calling others out for assuming Thorn is guilty, yet you turn around and judge a child as if they're at fault without blinking. If that's how you operate, you don't need any evidence at all, do you?😉

Talking about who's lying when you're the one spinning tales...

Adam Collins4 said:Look, Condor, you're totally taking things out of context...

You grab one sentence from one post, then another sentence from a different post...

And then you act like you've proven me wrong without actually making a single damn argument—so basically, you just decide your own claims are facts and call them axioms...

Your only move is constantly leaning on the Department of Justice, even though it's been FACTUALLY shown multiple times that the DOJ doesn't do its job by the book... so yeah, there's plenty of reason to doubt their impartiality...

Plus, you call others out for saying Thorn is guilty, yet you're happy to throw a kid under the bus without a second thought... if that's your logic, you don't need any proof at all...😉

Who's the liar here? You're the one spinning tales...

Since you were lost from the jump, I quoted the actual part of the post where this whole mess started. So NO, I didn't twist anything or change the meaning of what I originally commented on—you just don't get it, so I had to REPEAT what you wrote because you kept veering off on your own tangents even after I told you exactly what I was responding to and why I disagreed.

This isn't some debate club for differing viewpoints—this is where I'm officially lodging a complaint about my posts being unfairly flagged and deleted just because someone misread them, not because I actually broke any rules. I'm gonna skip addressing your long list of claims above since they clearly show you're just lying and making stuff up.

Let the big man show his proof of how I changed the meaning of anything, considering I just repeated the original quote that kicked this whole thing off—which you clearly failed to grasp in the first place.

And let the big man explain why one "insult" gets a strike while another goes totally untouched, even when it's three times worse.

The criteria this mod uses for handing out strikes are biased and nowhere near fair—honestly, he's a pathetic excuse for a moderator.

Maybe one of the more objective mods can explain how calling someone "stupid" gets you flagged, but calling them an "idiot" doesn't. I'd love to see a rational explanation for that kind of nonsense.🙂

So you're back at it again, playing judge and jury over who lost their way and who didn't... without offering a single shred of actual evidence...🤣

Once again, you've perfectly demonstrated what I’ve already pointed out—you have zero arguments, yet you feel entitled to dictate who does what and how they do it...

A total nightmare to read...

And as for "losing the plot," maybe someone who actually understands the difference between the relevance of the Department of Justice versus the courts could weigh in—though, for the record, I never once mentioned anything about the court's relevance in this context...🤣

The arguments and links are right there in the post above. If someone can't wrap their head around the fact that I only commented on one of the two cases—and clearly cited which one I was talking about—then they're just clueless. Especially after I already told them this isn't the place to bicker over whether the Department of Justice is doing its job or not, and that I'm not going to engage further. It just goes to show who the real problem is here, and frankly, it highlights exactly what kind of "work" the moderator is doing (read: censorship).

Sure thing...

So, you took two completely separate posts—dozens of sentences in total, mind you—and cherry-picked just enough words to stitch together this little Frankenstein argument that suits your narrative perfectly. It’s a classic move just to keep the trolling going, even though it flies directly in the face of the very forum rules you love to weaponize whenever it's convenient for you. But hey, we're just going to pretend that didn't happen, right?

Look, I’m asking nicely—don't drag that debate over here.

David Parker93 said:Look, I’m asking you nicely—don't bring that debate over here.

Oh, please...

The guy deleted it, so sure, he can just bring it back whenever he wants...

Just grab two different posts, take one sentence from each, and then go off on your own little tangent—suddenly the forum rules don't matter anymore, right?

But hey, if they don't matter, you basically gutted a much longer post that actually meant something else entirely, cherry-picked what suited you, and then started swinging...

Of course, you get to be the "judge" of what's important or relevant... typical.

Someone needs to pull up the original so we can see what the exact wording was before I tweaked it.

But let’s be real—that’s not happening, because then everyone would see I didn't even mess with the connections just to flip the meaning.

I'll jump back into the thread later and we'll see if this whole thing starts repeating itself.