Post by: Little Joe on July 28, 2025, 04:41:29 PM
I think he hates Trump so much that he can't accept the fact that Trump is winning battles all over the world. He is bringing peace to places that have never had peace. He has proven that he is not controlled by Putin. He has almost single handedly made NATO stronger in spite of the leftist mantra that he was trying to destroy NATO. And he is righting the wrongs that our "friends" have been perpetrating against us. Even the leaders of the EU admit they have been taking advantage of us.
Brian must hate all of that. Poor guy. It's tough to face how wrong you were. And I actually like Brian in spite of disagreeing with almost everything he thinks.
Post by: Lucifer on July 28, 2025, 04:44:03 PM
Post by: Lucifer on July 28, 2025, 04:56:13 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on July 28, 2025, 05:41:14 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on July 28, 2025, 05:46:01 PM
Post by: Little Joe on July 28, 2025, 06:02:47 PM
What is the indication that it is temporarily closed?
When connecting to the web site I get this:
Quote
The Pilot's Place Forums
After six years, The Pilot's Place is taking a vacation and a consideration of the forum's future. The forums will return in one week, on Saturday morning, August 2nd.
Post by: Rush on July 28, 2025, 06:10:38 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on July 28, 2025, 06:50:00 PM
When connecting to the web site I get this:Ah, okay. I don't remember my log in so the page I saw didn't say anything like that.
Post by: Anthony on July 29, 2025, 05:15:34 AM
Post by: azure on July 29, 2025, 06:25:47 AM
The Pilot's Place is "temporarily" closed down. Brian seems to have retreated into a hole somewhere. No explanation, so with nothing to go on, speculation is the only thing left.
I think he hates Trump so much that he can't accept the fact that Trump is winning battles all over the world. He is bringing peace to places that have never had peace. He has proven that he is not controlled by Putin. He has almost single handedly made NATO stronger in spite of the leftist mantra that he was trying to destroy NATO. And he is righting the wrongs that our "friends" have been perpetrating against us. Even the leaders of the EU admit they have been taking advantage of us.
Brian must hate all of that. Poor guy. It's tough to face how wrong you were. And I actually like Brian in spite of disagreeing with almost everything he thinks.
Yeah, I'm concerned about him. I even PM'd him on Facebook just to feel out what was going on (made clear that I wasn't criticizing his decision, just that I was curious) - but no response whatever. And he's been active there, so it's not as if he didn't see my message.
It's true that he's a very strongly partisan Democrat - you've probably seen the arguments I've had with him (on HIS Spin Zone) about things like trans women participating in women's sports) - but I have no idea whether politics had anything to do with the board's "vacation". The message on the board does promise that the board will be back up next Saturday so I'm not sure the scare quotes around "temporarily" are a fair assumption. But it also does say something like "to consider the board's future" so it seems likely that either there will be changes to the board, it'll either be shut down permanently, or he'll hand over ownership to someone he trusts - which I'm quite sure won't be me.
Post by: Lucifer on July 29, 2025, 06:53:51 AM
Post by: azure on July 29, 2025, 07:38:37 AM
I don't think Brian is mentally ill at all, in that he does listen and engage with conservatives. It's frustrating sometimes because he will often come back with reams of data culled from left-biased sources and it usually takes a lot of time and patience to suss out the false or questionable assumptions. But he always does so respectfully, and he's consistent - he doesn't move the goalposts and he doesn't swing from one argument to another in desperation. It's just that his whole worldview is progressive and he can't see too far outside it. I've come to not enjoy arguing politics with him, but I still consider him a decent, sane human being.
And again, I have NO idea whether his shutting down his board has anything to do with politics.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on July 29, 2025, 07:54:17 AM
Funny, I always thought the true mental disorder was being unwilling to listen to a point of view that disagrees with your own.That, and breaking with reality. Both apply to every one of my liberal friends. Seems Brian is a cut above in your experience.
Post by: Rush on July 29, 2025, 09:20:59 AM
Post by: azure on July 29, 2025, 10:32:41 AM
If he is of the age of a lot of us, he might have just got bad news about a health issue.
He is, and I thought of that. But he's been active on Facebook and there's been no change in the tone of his postings there, so I think it's unlikely... but not impossible, of course. :(
Post by: Number7 on July 29, 2025, 04:54:41 PM
For literally decades the public discourse has always handicapped conservative voices. It got so bad that you can be arrested and jailed in what has become the former nation of England if you dare to disagree with the school board and will be charged with… wait for it… unsupportive speech.
You see conservatives have always been a target that was considered unworthy of defense. When the ignorant hate crime laws were created they specifically exempted crimes committed against Jews and conservatives. It seems that the imbecile crowd actually believed that our point of view should be outlawed and crimes against us ignored.
Now Christian’s, white men, and heterosexuals are lumped in with Jews and conservatives. Leftist universities and public schools have taken great joy in singling those groups out for abuse.
Now that President Trump has made common sense, honor, and integrity fashionable over hateful lies of the leftist cabal, and many millions have started to push back, quite hard, Brian might feel that his rants and rages have little, or no affect anymore. That would be a massive blow to a liberal ego so used to getting a pass when he acted like the KKK with different targets.
Post by: Rush on July 29, 2025, 05:12:29 PM
Sometimes people get tired of fighting a war they always knew they couldn’t win.
For literally decades the public discourse has always handicapped conservative voices. It got so bad that you can be arrested and jailed in what has become the former nation of England if you dare to disagree with the school board and will be charged with… wait for it… unsupportive speech.
You see conservatives have always been a target that was considered unworthy of defense. When the ignorant hate crime laws were created they specifically exempted crimes committed against Jews and conservatives. It seems that the imbecile crowd actually believed that our point of view should be outlawed and crimes against us ignored.
Now Christian’s, white men, and heterosexuals are lumped in with Jews and conservatives. Leftist universities and public schools have taken great joy in singling those groups out for abuse.
Now that President Trump has made common sense, honor, and integrity fashionable over hateful lies of the leftist cabal, and many millions have started to push back, quite hard, Brian might feel that his rants and rages have little, or no affect anymore. That would be a massive blow to a liberal ego so ypusdd to getting a pass when he acted like the KKK with different targets.
He should come here and ‘splain to us what’s going on.
Post by: Lucifer on July 29, 2025, 05:20:11 PM
Funny, I always thought the true mental disorder was being unwilling to listen to a point of view that disagrees with your own.
You just described the main pillar of the liberal movement.
Post by: Bob Noel on July 29, 2025, 05:35:39 PM
Post by: Rush on July 29, 2025, 06:20:25 PM
And the other two legs are (1) the government is always the first choice for paying for <whatever> "solution" and (2) it's always the fault of someone else (don't ever EVER take personal responsibility)
Big time. Look how often they whine about how they are entitled to other people’s money. There’s one going around on X with a healthy looking young woman having a meltdown over Trump taking away her snap benefits.
Post by: azure on July 29, 2025, 08:51:49 PM
You just described the main pillar of the liberal movement.
Actually, I described a quality often seen in rabid partisans of ANY persuasion, not just the liberal type. In any case, my point was that though he's definitely liberal, Brian does NOT fall into that category. He's difficult to argue with mainly because he defends his points exclusively with data from strongly left-leaning sources, and doesn't seem to be aware of the biases in that data. He has partial blinders - but he doesn't stick his fingers in his ears and hum.
Post by: Anthony on July 30, 2025, 03:01:53 AM
Liberalism is a mental disorder, and he's a fine example of that.
And they often have reality caused mental meltdowns. I hope that's not the case here, but they're sometimes just wrapped to tight(ly) and something's got to give
Post by: Lucifer on July 30, 2025, 05:07:04 AM
Actually, I described a quality often seen in rabid partisans of ANY persuasion, not just the liberal type. In any case, my point was that though he's definitely liberal, Brian does NOT fall into that category. He's difficult to argue with mainly because he defends his points exclusively with data from strongly left-leaning sources, and doesn't seem to be aware of the biases in that data. He has partial blinders - but he doesn't stick his fingers in his ears and hum.
So when someone points out the biases in his data, how does he reply?
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 05:18:24 AM
So when someone points out the biases in his data, how does he reply?
Generally with more data from another source that is similarly biased. I don't see it as deliberate obfuscation - he's just blind to liberal bias. He's a little like a fish in water, unaware of the water that he lives in.
Post by: Lucifer on July 30, 2025, 05:49:32 AM
Generally with more data from another source that is similarly biased. I don't see it as deliberate obfuscation - he's just blind to liberal bias. He's a little like a fish in water, unaware of the water that he lives in.
So any information, even when it's logical and is backed up with facts, if he realizes that it comes from an "unapproved" (conservative) source he rejects it on that premise alone?
Post by: Rush on July 30, 2025, 06:37:08 AM
So any information, even when it's logical and is backed up with facts, if he realizes that it comes from an "unapproved" (conservative) source he rejects it on that premise alone?
My libtard brother does the same thing. He’ll cite lefty sources as if it’s fact, then when I counter with my sources he dismisses them as biased. He doesn’t see the irony, whereas I concede both sources are biased but if you apply logic and are open minded, you can connect the dots and come somewhere near reality, which is what I do, and it’s usually closer to my view. But he is locked into the narrow minded leftist cult, because you have to be, to support things like socialized medicine, and ends up calling everyone that doesn’t agree a fascist Nazi.
Post by: Lucifer on July 30, 2025, 06:40:18 AM
My libtard brother does the same thing. He’ll cite lefty sources as if it’s fact, then when I counter with my sources he dismisses them as biased. He doesn’t see the irony, whereas I concede both sources are biased but if you apply logic and are open minded, you can connect the dots and come somewhere near reality, which is what I do, and it’s usually closer to my view. But he is locked into the narrow minded leftist cult, because you have to be, to support things like socialized medicine, and ends up calling everyone that doesn’t agree a fascist Nazi.
Which is a mental disorder.
Post by: Number7 on July 30, 2025, 06:54:12 AM
Which is a mental disorder.
Which is the reality azure can’t comprehend.
Post by: Rush on July 30, 2025, 07:18:08 AM
Which is the reality azure can’t comprehend.
I can’t speak to Brian or Azure’s experience but in general, these people are identical to Jim Jones cultists and the like.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on July 30, 2025, 07:44:34 AM
I can’t speak to Brian or Azure’s experience but in general, these people are identical to Jim Jones cultists and the like.Exactly. And they vote.
Post by: Lucifer on July 30, 2025, 08:43:40 AM
Exactly. And they vote.
Stalin had a term for that, “Useful Idiots”.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on July 30, 2025, 08:58:25 AM
Quote
Brian was cray cray even before he showed up on the Red Board. What got me the most was his undue attention it lavished on younger males that showed up from time to time on the various boards.
In the early days of the PB, he did a trip out to Diana's place (if anyone remembers her has a grass strip at her place near Joplin, Missouri) with Brent (if anyone remembers him, he was a very young CFI at the time). Brent literally absconded in the middle of the night to get away from him. IIRC, Dr Bruce was involved with getting him away from Brian that evening.
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 09:56:52 AM
Which is the reality azure can’t comprehend.
Nah. It's a human failing. I believe we ALL have our blind spots. If I thought that beliefs I don't share were a mental disorder I'd avoid half of the people on the planet. I have friends and acquaintances from all political persuasions. I don't think less of someone just because I can't convince them that they're wrong. For one thing, I could be the one who is wrong, for another... see above. We all have blind spots.
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 10:01:23 AM
We had a short discussion on the PB about Brian. I know one of our guys over there was a fairly frequent visitor there. This was posted in regards to Brian.
Eppy, that's a scary story - undue attention toward young males - but I wasn't there and have no point of contact for that behavior as I've never met Brian in person, so I won't comment either way.
Post by: Rush on July 30, 2025, 10:40:44 AM
We had a short discussion on the PB about Brian. I know one of our guys over there was a fairly frequent visitor there. This was posted in regards to Brian.
😳
Having said the shock face, I don’t generally believe tales like that. Maybe they had a fight having nothing to do with the innuendoed thing.
All this suspicion of anyone taking an interest in young people is getting a little out of hand. Young people need adult mentors, and the pedo panic could discourage people, especially older men, the very ones who society most needs to guide young men, from having anything to do with them for fear of such accusations.
Just sayin.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on July 30, 2025, 10:58:55 AM
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 11:26:59 AM
For me. the fact the Dr. Chien got involved lend some credence to it.
That was my reaction as well to your story. But again, the reason may have nothing to do with suspicion that Brian was inappropriately interested in the young man. Now if I hear other stories, maybe from people I know better, that Brian has stalked this or that person, then I'll certainly revise my opinion.
In the meantime, I think Rush is right. Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
Post by: Lucifer on July 30, 2025, 11:42:10 AM
Post by: Number7 on July 30, 2025, 11:55:00 AM
Nah. It's a human failing. I believe we ALL have our blind spots. If I thought that beliefs I don't share were a mental disorder I'd avoid half of the people on the planet. I have friends and acquaintances from all political persuasions. I don't think less of someone just because I can't convince them that they're wrong. For one thing, I could be the one who is wrong, for another... see above. We all have blind spots.
The thing is that you rationalize far to often, quickly, and with no regard for the seriousness of the issue to protect your political narrative. Like many on the left, you might not even realize how disingenuous it is to constantly try to rephrase a behavior as benign, or of no importance.
The new liberal has redefined children as property of the government, but only as long as the government is on the correct plantation. A child is defined as an adult at age 12 or 13 for the purpose of allowing sadistic, mentally insane surgeons to mutilate their genitals, but they are also defined by the same nut jobs as too young to choose to smoke a cigarettes until they’re 21.
They are defined an adult at age 12 for the purpose of having an abortion without parental knowledge but are considered to young to buy a rifle, or .22 ammunition at 20 years old. The difference seems to point to the redefining of children as sexually available as long as only liberals get to decide.
The whole movement seems to be directed at making the sexual molestation of children not only legal, but acceptable like New Zealand, and the muslim pedophile world where they want to marry 9-11 years olds, and homosexual men have committed no crime in their eyes as long as they penetrate the male, and not penetrated. The idea of pedophilia is ignored as long the abuse is committed by the right muslim.
Post by: Anthony on July 30, 2025, 11:58:36 AM
My libtard brother does the same thing. He’ll cite lefty sources as if it’s fact, then when I counter with my sources he dismisses them as biased. He doesn’t see the irony, whereas I concede both sources are biased but if you apply logic and are open minded, you can connect the dots and come somewhere near reality, which is what I do, and it’s usually closer to my view. But he is locked into the narrow minded leftist cult, because you have to be, to support things like socialized medicine, and ends up calling everyone that doesn’t agree a fascist Nazi.
And the real cultists call us a cult! Total projection.
Post by: Rush on July 30, 2025, 12:48:43 PM
That was my reaction as well to your story. But again, the reason may have nothing to do with suspicion that Brian was inappropriately interested in the young man. Now if I hear other stories, maybe from people I know better, that Brian has stalked this or that person, then I'll certainly revise my opinion.
In the meantime, I think Rush is right. Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
Also agree Bruce being involved lends credence, but also agree that doesn't prove what the kurfluffle was all about. And even if it was sexual, unless the young person was a minor, or literal force was involved, it's none of our business. And I mean literal force. Merely being grossed out by a suggestive pass from a gay person shouldn't be grounds for a bunch of pearl clutching and reputation destruction. My gracioius don't we have stronger constitutions than that? Or I guess we've taught the current generation that if you don't get written consent before kissing a date goodnight, it's "assault". It's like we've gone back to all the prudery of the Victorian Age with none of the modest dress and behavior.
But, I don't know if that or anything else did or didn't happen, and it's really none of my business. If he's shut down the site for health reasons I don't wish him ill. Even if he is a libtard.
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 01:08:21 PM
The thing is that you rationalize far to often, quickly, and with no regard for the seriousness of the issue to protect your political narrative. Like many on the left, you might not even realize how disingenuous it is to constantly try to rephrase a behavior as benign, or of no importance.
The new liberal has redefined children as property of the government, but only as long as the government is on the correct plantation. A child is defined as an adult at age 12 or 13 for the purpose of allowing sadistic, mentally insane surgeons to mutilate their genitals, but they are also defined by the same nut jobs as too young to choose to smoke a cigarettes until they’re 21.
They are defined an adult at age 12 for the purpose of having an abortion without parental knowledge but are considered to young to buy a rifle, or .22 ammunition at 20 years old. The difference seems to point to the redefining of children as sexually available as long as only liberals get to decide.
The whole movement seems to be directed at making the sexual molestation of children not only legal, but acceptable like New Zealand, and the muslim pedophile world where they want to marry 9-11 years olds, and homosexual men have committed no crime in their eyes as long as they penetrate the male, and not penetrated. The idea of pedophilia is ignored as long the abuse is committed by the right muslim.
I doubt you have any idea of what my political narrative is, particularly if you think I'm somehow affiliated with the left. However, I completely reject the political narrative you've outlined above unless you can supply proof. Frankly, Number 7, this all sounds paranoid and QAnon-ish to me. I don't believe in a cabal of liberals that manipulates the law to empower pedophiles. To me this is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
Your reference to insane surgeons mutilating children's genitals just shows how different our perspectives are. The context you want to put that tragic problem into rings totally false to me. Seriously, I have zero doubt that everyone in that branch of health care believes they're doing the right thing for the kids they're treating. They're not pedophiles, they've just been indoctrinated into a belief system rooted in politics that I reject. They have lost touch with common sense. Whether they reject the belief system or not, I'm confident that most people, whatever their political persuasion, when reading Jamie Reed's story, will say that greenlighting with minimal psychotherapy and then operating on children is wrong and there should be a law against it. I shared this with a progressive friend today and she "got" it right away. Heck, Reed is a progressive herself!
I'm probably a lot more familiar with the politics of the LGBT community than you are, since I spent many years in it and accepted those politics almost unthinkingly back in the day. I moved to a new state, mixed with normal people since there really isn't an L community here. I talked to people of different political backgrounds, I learned, I changed my views. But I still know what that philosophy is all about, and it has nothing to do with legalizing or enabling pedophilia.
Post by: Number7 on July 30, 2025, 01:32:28 PM
Keep pretending that the goal is not about using children, and you will continue rationalize everything away.
When trannies demand to perform for six year olds, and doctors keep mutilating children, and the left continually fights to keep it that way, they are the problem. It is not about acceptance, understanding, or anything but using the courts to make it legal and acceptable to abuse children.
It started when the left used corrupt and stupid lawyers to cut parents out of abortion, and accelerated ever since.
A bunch of sick, twisted, stupid, perverts wanting to have power over someone who can’t say no.
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 01:54:14 PM
They believe that a boy can really be a girl on the inside - AND
They believe that a boy who says he wants to be a girl probably is one - BECAUSE
No boy that isn't really a girl inside would say they want to be one - AND
They believe that if they do not support the kid in "becoming" a girl, they'll be harming him irreparably - UNLESS
He has some other identifiable psychopathology. So as long as they can rule out other mental illness dx's, they believe they're ethically bound to send them for hormones and surgery.
The doctors and surgeons that "treat" them do no vetting, as far as I know. They accept the judgment of the clinic that sent him. They think they're doing the right thing.
So everyone thinks they're doing the right thing. The system is set up - all with good intentions - to fucking destroy 99.9% of the children who go through it, to ruin their bodies and their lives.
Do you see how that works? It starts with a belief system that's not grounded in science, reality, or common sense. It's collective insanity. The outcome is abuse of children, but the perps have no idea what they're doing is wrong.
The problem is the belief system, not the motivation. They're not after power over anyone, they're just brainwashed.
Post by: Number7 on July 30, 2025, 02:11:58 PM
We have dear friends whose daughter was groomed by public junior high personnel, ‘referred’ without her parents knowledge, at 12, to a state funded mental health advocate who further groomed her to believe puberty was really her body telling her that she was really a boy inside.
The state labeled her mentally challenged and appointed a counselor to ‘help’ her with her transition. Never once did anyone attempt to determine anything going on except the politically acceptable mutilation that the left loves.
The mentally disturbed state apparatchik steered her to a state ‘approved’ doctor who started her down the road of gender reassignment and made every possible decision that kept her parents from having any input.
Ten years later her voice was lowered, her breasts removed, reduced, remade, choose your own term.
Then she wakes up one morning, she rejects every lie she’s been told and admits she never really thought she was a boy but the pressure to conform was more than a 12 year old could reasonably resist. She was lavished with ‘positive’ input reinforcing the politically acceptable outcome, never offered any other input.
Now her voice is damaged, her body is mutilated, her youth as well as her beauty has been destroyed and she is wondering where were the people responsible to protect her from these sadisitc groomers.
It was all intentional and had nothing to do with what was best for her. It was and is all about power (in the sickest sense of the word) politics, and pedophilia.
Post by: Rush on July 30, 2025, 02:25:45 PM
But what I DO believe is there is an insidious force to destroy our civilization through population collapse. And I mean Western Civilization which, like it or not, is what brought the world the abundance and progress we enjoy, and like it or not, was led by Europe (aka "white people"). Abortion is of course directly helping that along, not that it's racist, it's also killing black babies; but all the other factors involved in dividing the sexes, making family life unaffordable, ramping up mental illness in children, and certainly the whole trans thing which directly sterilizes them, almost all of which is pushed by the LEFT.
Statistics show that rural, religious people have more children. Once you move to the city you have fewer children AND your politics tend to turn left and you tend to abandon religion. It partly is conscious, in the sense of attacking Jews and white people (hatred for the source of industrialization) and contempt for and abuse of the working class (producers that maintain everything) but it's more about destroying the West - or maybe even the whole human race - than it is about pedophilia, and most of it is not conscious. There's a surface consciousness like punish the colonizers, but that's the peak of the iceberg most of which is submerged. To me the pedo conspiracy is a mischaracterization. It's actually much worse than that.
They want to eradicate children altogether.
Post by: elwood blues on July 30, 2025, 02:58:44 PM
Brian is so on the left it is incredible. He was once a regular on the PB. Some little thing, not political, happened and we never saw him again.
I keep hearing about this Brian guy. Does Brian = qbynewbie?
Post by: Lucifer on July 30, 2025, 03:00:51 PM
I keep hearing about this Brian guy.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%2Fid%2FOIP.zPMBy6ACbBWtNmWjO4Ew4QHaHa%3Fpid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=a23ac9eed75eb3ad311f749619fda59372b366f4afd8da157d7c7c97674f77c7&ipo=images)
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 06:04:46 PM
I keep hearing about this Brian guy. Does Brian = qbynewbie?
Yes, Brian used that handle on at least PoA, and I think the old AOPA Red Board too.
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 06:13:06 PM
I seriously disagree with your conclusion that these freaks believe they are doing what is best for the child in the situation you’ve chosen.
We have dear friends whose daughter was groomed by public junior high personnel, ‘referred’ without her parents knowledge, at 12, to a state funded mental health advocate who further groomed her to believe puberty was really her body telling her that she was really a boy inside.
The state labeled her mentally challenged and appointed a counselor to ‘help’ her with her transition. Never once did anyone attempt to determine anything going on except the politically acceptable mutilation that the left loves.
The mentally disturbed state apparatchik steered her to a state ‘approved’ doctor who started her down the road of gender reassignment and made every possible decision that kept her parents from having any input.
Ten years later her voice was lowered, her breasts removed, reduced, remade, choose your own term.
Then she wakes up one morning, she rejects every lie she’s been told and admits she never really thought she was a boy but the pressure to conform was more than a 12 year old could reasonably resist. She was lavished with ‘positive’ input reinforcing the politically acceptable outcome, never offered any other input.
Now her voice is damaged, her body is mutilated, her youth as well as her beauty has been destroyed and she is wondering where were the people responsible to protect her from these sadisitc groomers.
It was all intentional and had nothing to do with what was best for her. It was and is all about power (in the sickest sense of the word) politics, and pedophilia.
That's a tragic story and I'm sincerely sorry for what the system did to that girl. I don't know any of the details beyond what you've stated so I can't comment on the motivations of the people involved in that particular tragedy. All I'm saying is that every case that I've read about (e.g. in the Reed article but also in similar accounts on Medscape) where details are given, there's no sinister grooming involved. It's just good people doing terrible things in the name of an insane ideology and belief system.
I hope the girl in your story is able to make the people who abused her pay. I don't know yet what it would take to make that possible, but these people are causing harm and everyone in that branch of health care needs to understand that it's NOT ok, regardless of whether they're acting in good faith.
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 06:36:33 PM
I stop short of believing there's a worldwide pedophilia ring consciously trying to turn all children into victims while I also say N7 is correct about the left wing's insane sanction of minors getting abortions and gender change surgery while making it illegal for anyone under 20 to own a gun or buy cigarettes. It's illogical and frankly, insane, but it's true.
But what I DO believe is there is an insidious force to destroy our civilization through population collapse. And I mean Western Civilization which, like it or not, is what brought the world the abundance and progress we enjoy, and like it or not, was led by Europe (aka "white people"). Abortion is of course directly helping that along, not that it's racist, it's also killing black babies; but all the other factors involved in dividing the sexes, making family life unaffordable, ramping up mental illness in children, and certainly the whole trans thing which directly sterilizes them, almost all of which is pushed by the LEFT.
Statistics show that rural, religious people have more children. Once you move to the city you have fewer children AND your politics tend to turn left and you tend to abandon religion. It partly is conscious, in the sense of attacking Jews and white people (hatred for the source of industrialization) and contempt for and abuse of the working class (producers that maintain everything) but it's more about destroying the West - or maybe even the whole human race - than it is about pedophilia, and most of it is not conscious. There's a surface consciousness like punish the colonizers, but that's the peak of the iceberg most of which is submerged. To me the pedo conspiracy is a mischaracterization. It's actually much worse than that.
They want to eradicate children altogether.
I'm beginning to realize that there's a serious problem here, at least in the near term, but I stop WAY short of thinking that anyone wants to eradicate children. Anyone who wants that is either insane (in the sense of not capable of sustaining logical thought) or they actually want to extinct mankind, which would be depraved rather than insane. And true collective depravity is rare in modern history - the Nazi movement in 20th century Germany is the first example that comes to mind, then I think Islamic jihadism is another. But those are/were both very conscious efforts engaged in deliberately by the people who actually did the work, and lots of common people are/were complicit without necessarily understanding the evil that they're enabling.
PBS Newshour did a piece this evening on the so-called Pronatalist movement, people concerned about declining birth rates who try to encourage heterosexual marriage and for young couples to raise several children, well beyond the replacement rate of something approaching 2 per couple. A fellow from the Heritage Foundation gave a number of compelling arguments for it, and another advocate gave a reason that startled me because I hadn't thought of it: that our social safety net fails if the number of people in the workforce drops below the number of people drawing benefits by a certain fraction. Elon called Social Security a Ponzi scheme - I'd say it's Ponzi-like and not literally a Ponzi - it's based on the same assumptions - and a Ponzi collapses if the bottom of the pyramid gets too weak. They also had a liberal analyst who argued that pronatalism is a bad idea because the surge of new people will take nearly 20 years to make its way into the workforce, so it's not a solution for the near term - doh. That's like saying forget about nuclear because it won't be available soon enough to lower GHG emissions tomorrow. A better conclusion is that it won't prevent SS from collapsing in the next 10 years, but it might stave off worse problems further down the road, especially if this trend continues. Can we expect it to be self-limited? I used to think so but I'm not so sure now. The same forces and incentives that are leading young people - and especially young women - to focus on careers until the years have flown and the opportunity to have children passes them by - those forces are inherent in modern society and there's no reason I know of to expect that conditions will be more favorable for people to start building families from a young age in 20 or 30 years.
A lot to think about here...
Post by: Number7 on July 30, 2025, 06:40:08 PM
No matter what anyone claims, liberalism is the scenic route to communism.
Liberals seem to hate everything.
They hate their parents for giving them everything but a stable, loving, long term love.
They hate their financial situation and blame the productive because it is so much easier than examining their personal choices and how they led them to the condition they find themselves in.
They hate the happy, because they hate seeing anyone joyfully since their lives are miserable. Happy people enrage liberals and they have made it their passion to stamp it out.
They hate Boy Scouts, little league, girls and boys sports, educational success, and things that pleas epopel when they strive to succeed and occasionally win.
The left hates us for having lives that reflect our own choices, hard work, self reliance, and success. They want everyone to share the same ugly, angry, lonely, empty life they lead, and damn anyone that works hard to improve their own lot.
Liberals fight against anything that gives working families a break, it doesn’t matter if it is reduced regulation, lower taxes, fewer road blocks to personal achievement, or the freedom to decide how their money is spent.
Liberals reflect barney frank more than Donald Trump. They believe that the money that other people earn3d would be better spent by them, than those who earned it. That’s because the left hates personal success. The risk is that they might come face t9 face with their own failures and it is so much easier to just blame the right.
The left’s little princess, barack obama even claimed that there should be limits on how much people should be allowed to earn. Lefties love that. Redistribution is so much easier than achievement,
Post by: Bob Noel on July 30, 2025, 06:40:47 PM
... there's no sinister grooming involved. It's just good people doing terrible things in the name of an insane ideology and belief system.
I have a difficult time with "good people" and "doing terrible things..."
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 07:00:09 PM
I have a difficult time with "good people" and "doing terrible things..."
It's an oblique reference to a quote from a prominent 20th century physicist named Steven Weinberg: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." The context could have been any of the many atrocities throughout history that have been done in the name of religion: the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Islamic jihad.
The phenomenon is not limited to religion though.
The point is that outcomes can be clearly evil as seen by sane people, but the people who do them can think they are doing the right thing. Humans have a seemingly limitless capacity to rationalize away actions that harm other innocent humans.
Post by: azure on July 30, 2025, 07:22:26 PM
Good faith is no where in the motivation of those leading children to self destructive surgery. It isn’t good faith, no matter what idiotic metric one applies to cause, facilitate, find, or perform genital mutilation on children in the name of feminism - hatred of men because women had a bad, or series of bad relationships and rather than examine themselves, they choose to hate men and do whatever it takes to pander to that pathology - and liberalism, the embrace of communist objectives, which drives the entire child multiplication industry.
No matter what anyone claims, liberalism is the scenic route to communism.
Liberals seem to hate everything.
They hate their parents for giving them everything but a stable, loving, long term love.
They hate their financial situation and blame the productive because it is so much easier than examining their personal choices and how they led them to the condition they find themselves in.
They hate the happy, because they hate seeing anyone joyfully since their lives are miserable. Happy people enrage liberals and they have made it their passion to stamp it out.
They hate Boy Scouts, little league, girls and boys sports, educational success, and things that pleas epopel when they strive to succeed and occasionally win.
The left hates us for having lives that reflect our own choices, hard work, self reliance, and success. They want everyone to share the same ugly, angry, lonely, empty life they lead, and damn anyone that works hard to improve their own lot.
Liberals fight against anything that gives working families a break, it doesn’t matter if it is reduced regulation, lower taxes, fewer road blocks to personal achievement, or the freedom to decide how their money is spent.
Liberals reflect barney frank more than Donald Trump. They believe that the money that other people earn3d would be better spent by them, than those who earned it. That’s because the left hates personal success. The risk is that they might come face t9 face with their own failures and it is so much easier to just blame the right.
The left’s little princess, barack obama even claimed that there should be limits on how much people should be allowed to earn. Lefties love that. Redistribution is so much easier than achievement,
I think I can sort of see where you're coming from on this, and I agree to an extent. Liberals certainly don't accept that some people - maybe even some demographics - don't achieve success at the rate others do because of their own actions. If black people are poorer than white people (on average), then it's because white people are keeping black people down, and it's now white people's responsibility to make sure that the average black income is equal to the average white income. So they pass laws that make it easier for blacks to get ahead, and discriminate against equally or better-qualified white people, all to achieve "equity". But equity != equality, and nowhere in the Constitution is there the promise of equity, only equality of opportunity. And black people who achieved at a high level then have to deal with the assumption that they were a "diversity hire", or that they have no right to own their success because they were helped along by DEI policies. It's easy to understand why men like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell have taken positions against these policies.
But what I'm seeing here looks more like white guilt than hatred of other people's success.
Post by: Rush on July 31, 2025, 02:31:16 AM
I'm beginning to realize that there's a serious problem here, at least in the near term, but I stop WAY short of thinking that anyone wants to eradicate children. Anyone who wants that is either insane (in the sense of not capable of sustaining logical thought) or they actually want to extinct mankind, which would be depraved rather than insane. And true collective depravity is rare in modern history - the Nazi movement in 20th century Germany is the first example that comes to mind, then I think Islamic jihadism is another. But those are/were both very conscious efforts engaged in deliberately by the people who actually did the work, and lots of common people are/were complicit without necessarily understanding the evil that they're enabling.
That’s exactly what they want, but it’s subconscious, and it’s collective. The first step: Devalue children.
Quote
PBS Newshour did a piece this evening on the so-called Pronatalist movement, people concerned about declining birth rates who try to encourage heterosexual marriage and for young couples to raise several children, well beyond the replacement rate of something approaching 2 per couple. A fellow from the Heritage Foundation gave a number of compelling arguments for it, and another advocate gave a reason that startled me because I hadn't thought of it: that our social safety net fails if the number of people in the workforce drops below the number of people drawing benefits by a certain fraction. Elon called Social Security a Ponzi scheme - I'd say it's Ponzi-like and not literally a Ponzi - it's based on the same assumptions - and a Ponzi collapses if the bottom of the pyramid gets too weak. They also had a liberal analyst who argued that pronatalism is a bad idea because the surge of new people will take nearly 20 years to make its way into the workforce, so it's not a solution for the near term - doh. That's like saying forget about nuclear because it won't be available soon enough to lower GHG emissions tomorrow. A better conclusion is that it won't prevent SS from collapsing in the next 10 years, but it might stave off worse problems further down the road, especially if this trend continues. Can we expect it to be self-limited? I used to think so but I'm not so sure now. The same forces and incentives that are leading young people - and especially young women - to focus on careers until the years have flown and the opportunity to have children passes them by - those forces are inherent in modern society and there's no reason I know of to expect that conditions will be more favorable for people to start building families from a young age in 20 or 30 years.
A lot to think about here...
Bingo! As a collective, we are committing suicide. No other way to put it.
Post by: Rush on July 31, 2025, 03:10:29 AM
It's an oblique reference to a quote from a prominent 20th century physicist named Steven Weinberg: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." The context could have been any of the many atrocities throughout history that have been done in the name of religion: the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Islamic jihad.
The phenomenon is not limited to religion though.
The point is that outcomes can be clearly evil as seen by sane people, but the people who do them can think they are doing the right thing. Humans have a seemingly limitless capacity to rationalize away actions that harm other innocent humans.
Let’s check our premise: “Good people can do evil things.”
Premise: There is such a thing as a “good” person.
Check: False, if you mean 100% good. Except Jesus and the Virgin Mary, every human has the capacity for evil.
We can torture this even further and ask ourselves to define “good” and “evil” but let’s not. Let’s just assume butchering adolescents’ genitals for no medical reason is the antithesis of good. So why would a (mostly) good person do that?
What often happens is a person gets caught up in something evil without realizing it. The lady (Jamie Reed) in the article Becky posted is the perfect example. But she came around and realized what she was doing was wrong. What allowed her to do that was empathy. Empathy is a thing normal humans feel for each other, and is evolutionarily necessary for our survival. (Because we are social animals and need each other.)
We all know how people get caught up in evil. Cults, propaganda and so on. Often the drivers of these do not themselves have empathy. It’s a birth defect if you will. On this board I loosely use the term “psychopath” and when I do, that is what I mean. Hitler and Jim Jones are examples of psychopathic leaders of evil cults that people got caught up in. Psychopaths are often intelligent and charismatic, which enables them to manipulate people, often by convincing them what they’re doing is “good”.
If everyone is on a spectrum of good to evil, some psychopaths are far to the evil side, and this might apply to many in this trans cult. But others are more or less average or lean to “good”, yet get caught up in an evil cult. But unless they’re stupid, maybe they eventually wake up like Jamie Reed did. Trouble is, a lot of people are stupid sheep.
Post by: Little Joe on July 31, 2025, 03:34:31 AM
I thought that was worth repeating.
The point is that outcomes can be clearly evil as seen by sane people, but the people who do them can think they are doing the right thing. Humans have a seemingly limitless capacity to rationalize away actions that harm other innocent humans.
Post by: Bob Noel on July 31, 2025, 03:39:17 AM
It's an oblique reference to a quote from a prominent 20th century physicist named Steven Weinberg: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." The context could have been any of the many atrocities throughout history that have been done in the name of religion: the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Islamic jihad.
The phenomenon is not limited to religion though.
The point is that outcomes can be clearly evil as seen by sane people, but the people who do them can think they are doing the right thing. Humans have a seemingly limitless capacity to rationalize away actions that harm other innocent humans.
an axiom in writing (books, TV, stage, whatever): the best villians are ones that have a morality, however twisted. That is, they do evil acts for a purpose they believe is right. The father that has a morality that doesn't care about anyone outside of the family, that father can kill/maim others and not think he is doing anything wrong.
My point is that thinking those are good people is flawed.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on July 31, 2025, 05:14:49 AM
Maybe we should force young girls or boys to become what they think they want to be as kids. Young Johnny has a fascination with fire trucks and firemen so we should take that as what he wants to become and force him down that route.
Post by: Rush on July 31, 2025, 05:53:25 AM
Maybe this is too simple, doctors are supposed to "do no harm". There is no way for a doctor that decides it is okay to mutilate a young girl or boy to know that ultimate outcome of that operation. Are they truly "doing no harm"?
Maybe we should force young girls or boys to become what they think they want to be as kids. Young Johnny has a fascination with fire trucks and firemen so we should take that as what he wants to become and force him down that route.
If you want to credit a doctor as not being psychopathic evil, and assume he’s just brainwashed into the cult, here is his thought process:
“All medical interventions have risks. For any treatment prescribed, we must weigh the risks and benefits.”
This is where the insidious lies of the trans cult come in: “If you don’t do the trans surgery, I will kill myself.” That is lie number 1. The next lie is that trans surgeries have a very low regret rate, and the complication rate is almost certainly also misrepresented.
Remember, until January 20, 2025, these lies were promoted by virtually the entire news media, all the educational institutions, much of government, and much of supposed “objective” scientific research. People within all these institutions who disagreed were censored and punished, so learned to keep their mouth shut.
So in weighing the risk and benefit, the thumb was heavily on the scale. We like to think of doctors as basing their recommendations on science and facts. And maybe some of these doctors believe that’s what they’re doing.
So the calculation becomes, “Yes there is a chance of serious complications but there is a greater risk of this person committing suicide.” If that were true, the doctor is making the right call. But it’s not.
The most frightening aspect of this is the corruption of the scientific world. Science is supposed to be the refuge from bias and propaganda, where we can get at the truth, but because science comes from higher education, and universities have been almost entirely taken over by the left, scientific research is now used to justify a political agenda, not to determine objective truth.
Doctors rely on scientific studies to a large extent.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on July 31, 2025, 05:58:15 AM
This makes me realize how my viewpoints were formed. My parents loved each other and were excellent at both loving and disciplining my brother and me. They worked hard and expected us to do that too. They drew the line beautifully between us and them … we did not expect to have equal negotiating powers with them. In fact, there was no negotiation. They had the authority. This made us feel very secure because we clearly saw the lives they led were good ones and we wanted that too. They were honest and expected honesty. They helped their community and neighbors and gave selflessly and quietly.
an axiom in writing (books, TV, stage, whatever): the best villians are ones that have a morality, however twisted. That is, they do evil acts for a purpose they believe is right. The father that has a morality that doesn't care about anyone outside of the family, that father can kill/maim others and not think he is doing anything wrong.
My point is that thinking those are good people is flawed.
We watched Father Knows Best and other such shows with strong family values. I read books that shaped my thoughts and always sought my truths and assumptions by testing them against the reality I saw around me. I noticed that at friends’ homes the values I just described were not always present, and clearly saw the result of that in their family dynamics. The idea that a healthy, happy family was somehow “unfair” because everyone didn’t have one would have been seen as ridiculous. Healthy is healthy … work toward that, and don’t set up barriers to it.
All this makes me realize that the world in which I grew up is completely different now, although my belief in eternal verities has not changed. They’re still there, and they define and create human flourishing to the extent mankind is able to do so.
The discussion topics in this thread are about cultural and political and mental gyrations that in the world I was I raised in would have been seen as anti-truth, and quickly dealt with. And there is the problem I’ve seen for years now: We all let this happen, we were NOT vigilant, we let rot creep in until we were almost fatally weakened by it, and now we must dig out and defend and recover and build a flourishing future built in reality, including fending off instantly all attempts to distort reality and truth.
Post by: azure on July 31, 2025, 05:59:45 AM
Let’s check our premise: “Good people can do evil things.”
Premise: There is such a thing as a “good” person.
Check: False, if you mean 100% good. Except Jesus and the Virgin Mary, every human has the capacity for evil.
We can torture this even further and ask ourselves to define “good” and “evil” but let’s not. Let’s just assume butchering adolescents’ genitals for no medical reason is the antithesis of good. So why would a (mostly) good person do that?
What often happens is a person gets caught up in something evil without realizing it. The lady (Jamie Reed) in the article Becky posted is the perfect example. But she came around and realized what she was doing was wrong. What allowed her to do that was empathy. Empathy is a thing normal humans feel for each other, and is evolutionarily necessary for our survival. (Because we are social animals and need each other.)
We all know how people get caught up in evil. Cults, propaganda and so on. Often the drivers of these do not themselves have empathy. It’s a birth defect if you will. On this board I loosely use the term “psychopath” and when I do, that is what I mean. Hitler and Jim Jones are examples of psychopathic leaders of evil cults that people got caught up in. Psychopaths are often intelligent and charismatic, which enables them to manipulate people, often by convincing them what they’re doing is “good”.
If everyone is on a spectrum of good to evil, some psychopaths are far to the evil side, and this might apply to many in this trans cult. But others are more or less average or lean to “good”, yet get caught up in an evil cult. But unless they’re stupid, maybe they eventually wake up like Jamie Reed did. Trouble is, a lot of people are stupid sheep.
Bingo, excellent analysis. I think you and I are saying essentially the same thing. I never claimed there was such a thing as a totally "good" person. Weinberg's maxim is necessarily imprecise, but I think he's getting at exactly what both you and I are saying: people who have no desire to cause harm get caught up in practices that cause terrible harm because their devotion to a belief has won out over their capacity to understand the difference between good and evil. Sometimes it is because they have been misled or manipulated by people who have NO internal constraints, psychopaths and the like, as you say. Other times it is because people like themselves have managed to convince themselves of things that are completely or mostly false, have blinded themselves to the terrible consequences of what they're doing, and have convinced others by appealing to a shared political philosophy (loosely, liberalism or better, progressivism).
I think the latter mechanism is what's driving the "gender care" industry, especially when it comes to children. There's no Jim Jones or Hitler or even a Karl Marx. A segment of the population (transgender activists) has developed a self-serving ideology centered around the idea that it's a human right to be able to choose (or even INVENT ::)) your own gender, successfully convinced liberals that they're on the bottom rung of the "hierarchy of oppression" (a basically Marxist paradigm), and guilt-tripped them into swallowing this ideology hook, line, and sinker. The natural human tendency to want to maintain the status quo because it benefits yourself (they don't want their profession and source of livelihood to disappear) is also at work, further blinding themselves to the consequences of their actions.
How best to stop the madness? I don't know, but it certainly has to start with making those who are hurting children accountable.
Post by: azure on July 31, 2025, 06:04:45 AM
an axiom in writing (books, TV, stage, whatever): the best villians are ones that have a morality, however twisted. That is, they do evil acts for a purpose they believe is right. The father that has a morality that doesn't care about anyone outside of the family, that father can kill/maim others and not think he is doing anything wrong.
My point is that thinking those are good people is flawed.
Maybe "good" is too simple a word. Would you prefer "ordinary" or "average"? I would say that the average person is capable of committing terrible evil in the name of something, an ideal, that not only they but other average people would consider worthy.
In other words, the goal may be something that most people agree is good and moral, but the outcome is anything but.
Post by: azure on July 31, 2025, 06:09:10 AM
That’s exactly what they want, but it’s subconscious, and it’s collective. The first step: Devalue children.
And here is where I disagree, and I think it may be the only place. Because I don't think they want this - but they don't see that this as a possible or likely consequence of their actions.
(And actually, I think it's far-fetched to worry about mankind going extinct as a result of the birth rate decline. But widespread suffering as a result of even partial societal collapse is quite possible, and I agree that it's a problem requiring a solution.)
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on July 31, 2025, 06:16:33 AM
If you want to credit a doctor as not being psychopathic evil, and assume he’s just brainwashed into the cult, here is his thought process:Consider that the left/evil/cabal/Democrats need always to escalate in order to keep up the outrage and hate upon which they build and sustain their base. When they rammed gay marriage through the courts and came out on the other side, things calmed down and they needed a new outrage. So, because their world view seems almost exclusively focused on race and sex, voila, trans people became the new oppressed class, despite the number of them being vanishingly small. It’s not at all surprising that dangling such a tempting attention-getter (I was born in the wrong body!) in front of young people would cause the numbers of them “identifying” as such to explode as they have.
“All medical interventions have risks. For any treatment prescribed, we must weigh the risks and benefits.”
This is where the insidious lies of the trans cult come in: “If you don’t do the trans surgery, I will kill myself.” That is lie number 1. The next lie is that trans surgeries have a very low regret rate, and the complication rate is almost certainly also misrepresented.
Remember, until January 20, 2025, these lies were promoted by virtually the entire news media, all the educational institutions, much of government, and much of supposed “objective” scientific research. People within all these institutions who disagreed were censored and punished, so learned to keep their mouth shut.
So in weighing the risk and benefit, the thumb was heavily on the scale. We like to think of doctors as basing their recommendations on science and facts. And maybe some of these doctors believe that’s what they’re doing.
So the calculation becomes, “Yes there is a chance of serious complications but there is a greater risk of this person committing suicide.” If that were true, the doctor is making the right call. But it’s not.
The most frightening aspect of this is the corruption of the scientific world. Science is supposed to be the refuge from bias and propaganda, where we can get at the truth, but because science comes from higher education, and universities have been almost entirely taken over by the left, scientific research is now used to justify a political agenda, not to determine objective truth.
Doctors rely on scientific studies to a large extent.
I think, though, that the strategy of finding new victim groups is foundering. With the attack on subsuming gullible young into the dark night of trans world under attack, and rightfully so, now we see the left veering to the defense of hardened illegal criminals and attempting to BRING THEM BACK once they’ve been deported. Who will the next “oppressed” group be? It’s really not working anymore.
Post by: azure on July 31, 2025, 06:20:24 AM
Maybe this is too simple, doctors are supposed to "do no harm". There is no way for a doctor that decides it is okay to mutilate a young girl or boy to know that ultimate outcome of that operation.
This is where belief comes in - the theory is that children know what gender they "really" are from a young age, so the outcome should almost never be a disaster. Proponents used to point to the "John/Joan" case (his real name was David Reimer) and the discredited ideas of John Money to support this theory. They drew the wrong conclusion from another case of child sexual mutilation - to fit their own narrative. This argument might still be considered convincing in some circles - I'm not sure.
But even Money was not acting out of any desire to hurt children. He himself was blinded by his own theories - and his hubris.
Post by: Lucifer on July 31, 2025, 06:25:29 AM
If you want to credit a doctor as not being psychopathic evil, and assume he’s just brainwashed into the cult, here is his thought process:
“All medical interventions have risks. For any treatment prescribed, we must weigh the risks and benefits.”
This is where the insidious lies of the trans cult come in: “If you don’t do the trans surgery, I will kill myself.” That is lie number 1. The next lie is that trans surgeries have a very low regret rate, and the complication rate is almost certainly also misrepresented.
Remember, until January 20, 2025, these lies were promoted by virtually the entire news media, all the educational institutions, much of government, and much of supposed “objective” scientific research. People within all these institutions who disagreed were censored and punished, so learned to keep their mouth shut.
So in weighing the risk and benefit, the thumb was heavily on the scale. We like to think of doctors as basing their recommendations on science and facts. And maybe some of these doctors believe that’s what they’re doing.
So the calculation becomes, “Yes there is a chance of serious complications but there is a greater risk of this person committing suicide.” If that were true, the doctor is making the right call. But it’s not.
The most frightening aspect of this is the corruption of the scientific world. Science is supposed to be the refuge from bias and propaganda, where we can get at the truth, but because science comes from higher education, and universities have been almost entirely taken over by the left, scientific research is now used to justify a political agenda, not to determine objective truth.
Doctors rely on scientific studies to a large extent.
But you leave out one important point: Medicine is business.
We all want to believe the good doc is looking out for our best interest, but in today’s world how many unnecessary procedures are done to increase the bottom line? Especially when insurance is involved and the payout certain.
Post by: Rush on July 31, 2025, 06:38:21 AM
But you leave out one important point: Medicine is business.
We all want to believe the good doc is looking out for our best interest, but in today’s world how many unnecessary procedures are done to increase the bottom line? Especially when insurance is involved and the payout certain.
I did think about that but decided not to bloat my post even more. I’ll just agree that: “To the extent doctors consider the actual benefit of the patient beyond their own profit…” blah blah.
To apply this to the topic of transgender it probably varies among the different levels. The surgeons have to be mostly profit driven. But the initial psychotherapist makes equal money whether they direct the kid into the trans pipeline or try to approach it another way, unless they are employed by a trans clinic and their job is to direct the fish into the chute.
Post by: Number7 on July 31, 2025, 06:41:04 AM
Maybe this is too simple, doctors are supposed to "do no harm". There is no way for a doctor that decides it is okay to mutilate a young girl or boy to know that ultimate outcome of that operation. Are they truly "doing no harm"?
Maybe we should force young girls or boys to become what they think they want to be as kids. Young Johnny has a fascination with fire trucks and firemen so we should take that as what he wants to become and force him down that route.
Leftists NEVER care about the boy or girl. They care about the narrative, the agenda, and/or the thing their masters tell them they care about.
Try discussing with a lefty about the positives in the first six months of the second Donald Trump Presidency. Their total abject hatred of President Trump is so pervasive that anything positive is automatically evil. Ending iran's nuclear bomb program is evil but only because President Trump did it. Israel is evil for protecting itself from hamas, ONLY because the narrative states that Israel is bad.
Our lefty daughter actually believes that Donald Trump hired minorities in the 1980s and promoted them based on his intention to run for President in 2016. Her hatred is just as fake as the things she claims. The truth, or facts, have absolutely no place in a discussion about President Donald Trump. She has been ordered to hate him. She hates him, and anyone who doesn't is automatically evil in her eyes. Once the stupid people narrative said that pedophile men were supposed to be allowed into girls' bathrooms, everyone who disagreed was just an evil homophobe. When men started beating women up in women's sports, she was cheering for them, because some stupid leftist asshole said to. She will argue until dawn that every person can change their gender just by saying so, and that it should be illegal to say otherwise.
It is a sickness that seems to affect only leftists. It is almost as if they have been brainwashed out of the crib to think whatever bullshit they are told to think and everything else is just white noise. I always distrusted public school teachers. That distrust is even more prevalent now that it came out that the people who make up the scum bag antifa shit show are 75% public school teachers, it makes more sense. Our lefty daughter thinks public school teachers should be sainted. It makes no difference that well over 70% of public school children can't read at their grade level, or pass basic math tests. She was told to think that, and that makes it the gospel.
In the current political climate, independent thought is being punished in public schools. When a teacher makes an outrageous or dishonest claim and is challenged, these fucks want the parents barred and the children expelled.
Post by: Rush on July 31, 2025, 06:44:44 AM
This makes me realize how my viewpoints were formed. My parents loved each other and were excellent at both loving and disciplining my brother and me. They worked hard and expected us to do that too. They drew the line beautifully between us and them … we did not expect to have equal negotiating powers with them. In fact, there was no negotiation. They had the authority. This made us feel very secure because we clearly saw the lives they led were good ones and we wanted that too. They were honest and expected honesty. They helped their community and neighbors and gave selflessly and quietly.
We watched Father Knows Best and other such shows with strong family values. I read books that shaped my thoughts and always sought my truths and assumptions by testing them against the reality I saw around me. I noticed that at friends’ homes the values I just described were not always present, and clearly saw the result of that in their family dynamics. The idea that a healthy, happy family was somehow “unfair” because everyone didn’t have one would have been seen as ridiculous. Healthy is healthy … work toward that, and don’t set up barriers to it.
All this makes me realize that the world in which I grew up is completely different now, although my belief in eternal verities has not changed. They’re still there, and they define and create human flourishing to the extent mankind is able to do so.
The discussion topics in this thread are about cultural and political and mental gyrations that in the world I was I raised in would have been seen as anti-truth, and quickly dealt with. And there is the problem I’ve seen for years now: We all let this happen, we were NOT vigilant, we let rot creep in until we were almost fatally weakened by it, and now we must dig out and defend and recover and build a flourishing future built in reality, including fending off instantly all attempts to distort reality and truth.
There is a whole lot of meat here. We are experiencing the transition from a cohesive culture with shared values, mostly anyway, to a fractured and declining one. If you listen to Rudyard Lynch (whatifalthist) this is a normal part of civilizational cycle. But even he admits it (the U.S.) may survive for a few more centuries although maybe in a transformed way.
Post by: Rush on July 31, 2025, 06:48:17 AM
Leftists NEVER care about the boy or girl. They care about the narrative, the agenda, and/or the thing their masters tell them they care about.
Try discussing with a lefty about the positives in the first six months of the second Donald Trump Presidency. Their total abject hatred of President Trump is so pervasive that anything positive is automatically evil. Ending iran's nuclear bomb program is evil but only because President Trump did it. Israel is evil for protecting itself from hamas, ONLY because the narrative states that Israel is bad.
Our lefty daughter actually believes that Donald Trump hired minorities in the 1980s and promoted them based on his intention to run for President in 2016. Her hatred is just as fake as the things she claims. The truth, or facts, have absolutely no place in a discussion about President Donald Trump. She has been ordered to hate him. She hates him, and anyone who doesn't is automatically evil in her eyes. Once the stupid people narrative said that pedophile men were supposed to be allowed into girls' bathrooms, everyone who disagreed was just an evil homophobe. When men started beating women up in women's sports, she was cheering for them, because some stupid leftist asshole said to. She will argue until dawn that every person can change their gender just by saying so, and that it should be illegal to say otherwise.
It is a sickness that seems to affect only leftists. It is almost as if they have been brainwashed out of the crib to think whatever bullshit they are told to think and everything else is just white noise. I always distrusted public school teachers. That distrust is even more prevalent now that it came out that the people who make up the scum bag antifa shit show are 75% public school teachers, it makes more sense. Our lefty daughter thinks public school teachers should be sainted. It makes no difference that well over 70% of public school children can't read at their grade level, or pass basic math tests. She was told to think that, and that makes it the gospel.
In the current political climate, independent thought is being punished in public schools. When a teacher makes an outrageous or dishonest claim and is challenged, these fucks want the parents barred and the children expelled.
Same with my brother. He’s a lost cause. Late 50s now and bought into leftism hook line and sinker, at least the commie economic part and the hate Donald Trump part. I’ll give him a tiny bit of credit for when I told him about the trans surgeries on minors he agreed it was horrifying and said this was the first he’d heard of it, which I believe him, because his left mainstream media sources certainly don’t publicize the truth of it.
Post by: azure on July 31, 2025, 07:07:38 AM
Same with my brother. He’s a lost cause. Late 50s now and bought into leftism hook line and sinker, at least the commie economic part and the hate Donald Trump part. I’ll give him a tiny bit of credit for when I told him about the trans surgeries on minors he agreed it was horrifying and said this was the first he’d heard of it, which I believe him, because his left mainstream media sources certainly don’t publicize the truth of it.
Exactly. The reason the left-leaning public at large isn't horrified by this because they don't know anything about it. Bring out the facts in a convincing way - as Jamie Reed did - and they will listen. I had no difficulty at all convincing my progressive friend that this was an actionable practice. She's a criminal justice professor and the line in the WPATH SOC sanctioning the practice of greenlighting minors for surgery if in the professional's judgment they possess the necessary capacity for informed consent is, I think, what really did it. It's a clear sign that the profession has thrown out a legal principle that most of society agrees is necessary to protect developing minds from abuse by adults.
This particular battle is winnable if we don't overplay our hand. A prosecutor doesn't charge a defendant with murder if the facts only support negligent homicide. But negligent homicide is still a felony, and mutilating a child who cannot give informed consent is at least malpractice if not outright criminal. We can hold the perps accountable - mainly, we need to put the true facts out there.
Post by: Rush on July 31, 2025, 07:25:10 AM
Exactly. The reason the left-leaning public at large isn't horrified by this because they don't know anything about it. Bring out the facts in a convincing way - as Jamie Reed did - and they will listen. I had no difficulty at all convincing my progressive friend that this was an actionable practice. She's a criminal justice professor and the line in the WPATH SOC sanctioning the practice of greenlighting minors for surgery if in the professional's judgment they possess the necessary capacity for informed consent[/b] is, I think, what really did it. It's a clear sign that the profession has thrown out a legal principle that most of society agrees is necessary to protect developing minds from abuse by adults.
This particular battle is winnable if we don't overplay our hand. A prosecutor doesn't charge a defendant with murder if the facts only support negligent homicide. But negligent homicide is still a felony, and mutilating a child who cannot give informed consent is at least malpractice if not outright criminal. We can hold the perps accountable - mainly, we need to put the true facts out there.
We have arrived at the point where a 15 year old girl cannot give informed consent to have her boyfriend cop a feel of her boobs but she can consent to have a surgeon chop them off.
Post by: azure on August 02, 2025, 03:49:08 AM
Post by: Rush on August 02, 2025, 04:15:11 AM
Well, Brian kept his word, at least. TPP is back as of this morning.
Maybe he just updated the software and here we wrote 5 pages of gossip and wild speculation. 🤣
Post by: Lucifer on August 02, 2025, 04:41:07 AM
Post by: azure on August 02, 2025, 05:14:35 AM
Maybe he just updated the software and here we wrote 5 pages of gossip and wild speculation. 🤣
Most likely his software has a "vacation" feature that allows a site to go down and then come up again at a predetermined time. I doubt Brian was up when I found the site back up this morning (to share my daily Wordle ;)) - and it looks as if my post was the first one since the reboot.
Post by: Little Joe on August 02, 2025, 07:06:06 AM
Well, Brian kept his word, at least. TPP is back as of this morning.For how long? Brian has these little temper tantrums fairly regularly. Someday he'll pull the trigger and shut it down. Probably when Trump proves that the conspiracies against him were not just theories but rather perpetrated by criminal democrats.
Post by: azure on August 02, 2025, 07:32:35 AM
For how long? Brian has these little temper tantrums fairly regularly. Someday he'll pull the trigger and shut it down. Probably when Trump proves that the conspiracies against him were not just theories but rather perpetrated by criminal democrats.
He does have temper tantrums fairly often - including one against me not too long ago when he totally misread a post of mine - but this is the first time he's actually shut the site down for any length of time. I think it's pretty likely that the "Politics, Religion, and other Difficult Topics" sub-forum will disappear as (nearly?) everyone there is farther to the right on the political spectrum than Brian. Tbh I think he's the only liberal who participates in that sub-forum, so it's got to feel pretty lonely. I'd be disappointed, since I think that overall that sub-forum has worked out quite well - 99% of the people who post there respect the "play nicely" rule, and the other 1% usually self-censor or quit the forum. I don't think he's banned any MAGA people for violating the rule, though, which says something (he banned someone with the handle Climb'n'Sink a few years ago, for repeatedly violating the rule, and someone else for repeatedly challenging his authority, but I don't think either case was connected to the politics forum).
I hope he doesn't shut the whole thing down, though. He's given the old Cessna club a new home and there are lively aviation discussions there. Dr. Bruce is active in the Medical sub-forum, and is a moderator. It's a healthy aviation site, not as censorious and plain-vanilla as the Blue Board (PoA)
Post by: Rush on August 02, 2025, 08:36:27 AM
He does have temper tantrums fairly often - including one against me not too long ago when he totally misread a post of mine - but this is the first time he's actually shut the site down for any length of time. I think it's pretty likely that the "Politics, Religion, and other Difficult Topics" sub-forum will disappear as (nearly?) everyone there is farther to the right on the political spectrum than Brian. Tbh I think he's the only liberal who participates in that sub-forum, so it's got to feel pretty lonely. I'd be disappointed, since I think that overall that sub-forum has worked out quite well - 99% of the people who post there respect the "play nicely" rule, and the other 1% usually self-censor or quit the forum. I don't think he's banned any MAGA people for violating the rule, though, which says something (he banned someone with the handle Climb'n'Sink a few years ago, for repeatedly violating the rule, and someone else for repeatedly challenging his authority, but I don't think either case was connected to the politics forum).
I hope he doesn't shut the whole thing down, though. He's given the old Cessna club a new home and there are lively aviation discussions there. Dr. Bruce is active in the Medical sub-forum, and is a moderator. It's a healthy aviation site, not as censorious and plain-vanilla as the Blue Board (PoA)
If he gets rid of the politics sub-forum that would follow the trajectory of all the boards. It seems they can’t handle the fact that the right ends up dominating, probably because we have reality on our side.
And by “right” I mean anything right of the far left.
I heard somebody complain about Musk for that reason. (That X has become too “right wing”.) They said Elon lied when he bought Twitter to make it an unbiased free speech platform; he has (deliberately in their mind) turned it into a right wing forum. He has done no such thing. What happened was when the right was no longer censored, the left’s arguments lose water, because they're usually wrong. So they tend to resort to personal insults and then run away.
The left CANNOT win public discourse unless they censor everything, period. So a bunch of them left, but many are still there and X certainly isn’t “far right” on average.
Post by: azure on August 02, 2025, 11:04:51 AM
It's his board, he can do what he wants with it - and I should say that at least as of now, there's no indication that anything is going to be shut down. Last I checked (a couple hours ago), Brian hadn't even made a single post today. So he may still be sulking, and just allowed the forum to come back up automatically at whatever the predetermined time was.
Time will tell.
Post by: Mase on August 02, 2025, 12:41:17 PM
Post by: You Only Live Twice on August 02, 2025, 02:21:44 PM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 02, 2025, 04:15:23 PM
Remember you are all welcome to come FlyersForum.org, with no moderation other than what you impose. Though the discussions there tend to be more focused on aviation than politics.
Post by: azure on August 02, 2025, 06:39:12 PM
What is happening now with pilotsplace? Was it supposed to be back?
Remember you are all welcome to come FlyersForum.org, with no moderation other than what you impose. Though the discussions there tend to be more focused on aviation than politics.
The Pilots Place was back up as of today. Brian made his first post so he's back too. I'm not going to share any details, but since there was so much speculation here, I'll just say that what happened is that Brian wanted a "mental health break" and it had mostly to do with me, though he also gave vague references to upsetting private communications from (I think) other board members.
That's all I'll say about it. Anyone who's also on that board can read for themselves.
Post by: Rush on August 02, 2025, 06:53:37 PM
The Pilots Place was back up as of today. Brian made his first post so he's back too. I'm not going to share any details, but since there was so much speculation here, I'll just say that what happened is that Brian wanted a "mental health break" and it had mostly to do with me, though he also gave vague references to upsetting private communications from (I think) other board members.
That's all I'll say about it. Anyone who's also on that board can read for themselves.
Ha! Well I think maybe I registered over there. Maybe I’ll go see if I did. I have some vague memory of getting upset over some discussion involving covid in 2020 that might have been over there.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 04:43:57 AM
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 05:19:07 AM
Like I said, he's a drama queen.
Yes he is, but I consider him a friend, regardless of his political views.
Rush, I'm pretty sure I remember seeing a couple of posts from you there several years ago so you should still have an account. And just to add: according to Brian, what I said about him banning people for persistent violations of "the rule" was incorrect. He says the most he ever did was give 30 day suspensions.
Post by: Bob Noel on August 03, 2025, 05:32:04 AM
... And just to add: according to Brian, what I said about him banning people for persistent violations of "the rule" was incorrect. He says the most he ever did was give 30 day suspensions.
well, that is certainly enough to justify getting upset. ::)
Post by: Anthony on August 03, 2025, 06:32:01 AM
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 06:56:02 AM
well, that is certainly enough to justify getting upset. ::)
Say what? Not following you there...
Post by: Bob Noel on August 03, 2025, 07:05:21 AM
Say what? Not following you there...
I was being snarky, dismissive of Brian having his feelings hurt. The distinction between not banning someone, just giving a suspension, doesn't even rise to a first world problem.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 07:11:03 AM
And just to add: according to Brian, what I said about him banning people for persistent violations of "the rule" was incorrect. He says the most he ever did was give 30 day suspensions.Actually, this is not true. He has banned some accounts permanently for “violating” the rules.
Post by: Little Joe on August 03, 2025, 08:19:36 AM
Actually, this is not true. He has banned some accounts permanently for “violating” the rules.Any chance you can give an example? And which rules?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 08:23:16 AM
Any chance you can give an example? And which rules?I didn’t know the details that well but observed it. I believe there is only one rule there - “play nice” - so that is clearly rather flexible.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 08:31:30 AM
I didn’t know the details that well but observed it. I believe there is only one rule there - “play nice” - so that is clearly rather flexible.
So what did you observe?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 08:40:46 AM
So what did you observe?There was a user that had sent me an email with the personal details for John Long and had posted these on PilotsPlace, here, and other sites. That account was subsequently removed.
I guess I am assuming it was Brian that did the removal. But perhaps there are other moderators at PilotsPlace as well?
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 08:48:11 AM
There was a user that had sent me an email with the personal details for John Long and had posted these on PilotsPlace, here, and other sites. That account was subsequently removed.
I guess I am assuming it was Brian that did the removal. But perhaps there are other moderators at PilotsPlace as well?
So this poster was attempting to dox someone?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 08:51:02 AM
So this poster was attempting to dox someone?I would say, not only attempting, but doing so. The information was quite detailed.
I gathered from the removal of that account here that doxxing is not allowed here either?
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 08:52:04 AM
There was a user that had sent me an email with the personal details for John Long and had posted these on PilotsPlace, here, and other sites. That account was subsequently removed.
I guess I am assuming it was Brian that did the removal. But perhaps there are other moderators at PilotsPlace as well?
Was this a regular poster or someone who just appeared out of the blue? I have no idea who John Long is and if it's not someone on the board, this sounds like the actions of an intruder posting random nonsense. Brian did say that he has banned spammers - just not actual participants who had repeatedly violated "the rule".
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 08:54:32 AM
I would say, not only attempting, but doing so. The information was quite detailed.
I gathered from the removal of that account here that doxxing is not allowed here either?
Not sure but I would hope so. Takes a really mentally disturbed individual to resort to that sort of behavior.
It's telling when an account suddenly pops up and the first post is a dox. I believe the proper description would be a "sock puppet".
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 08:54:49 AM
Was this a regular poster or someone who just appeared out of the blue? I have no idea who John Long is and if it's not someone on the board, this sounds like the actions of an intruder posting random nonsense. Brian did say that he has banned spammers - just not actual participants who had repeatedly violated "the rule".I think that was the user’s primary posts. It is highly likely that John Long was a user on the board and certainly a well known user on this and other aviation boards. So I would not say it qualifies as random nonsense. It appears that Brian (or whomever) on PilotsPlace was banning doxxing.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 08:57:06 AM
Not sure but I would hope so.
Aren’t you a moderator here? Is doxxing allowed by the rules or not?
It seems a pertinent question given that Number7 doxxed Prof. Michael Weinstein here.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 09:06:47 AM
Aren’t you a moderator here? Is doxxing allowed by the rules or not?
It seems a pertinent question given that Number7 doxxed Michael Weinstein here.
I've never seen any doxing by N7. The info he has posted was all public knowledge and even posted by the perfesser himself on other forums.
Doxing is when some twisted mentally deranged individual starts posting so called "information" on someone (that maybe or most times isn't) true in order to cause harm to the individual.
These mental midgets even resort to using sock puppets believing they are smarter than everyone else but yet leave a trail to the real perpetrator.
Really mentally fucked up individuals IMO. So in that regard I don't blame Brian one bit for banning the idiot.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 09:09:58 AM
I've never seen any doxing by N7. The info he has posted was all public knowledge and even posted by the perfesser himself onother forums.
So is posting publicly available information about other posters allowed here or not?
Also, are you saying that the distinction between simply posting such information and “doxxing” depends on the intent or mental state of the person doing the posting?
If so, that strikes me as an extremely subjective judgement. And actually exactly the sort of subjectivity that many of the posters here object to on other forums, such as PoA.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 09:12:24 AM
So is posting publicly available information about other posters allowed here or not?
Also, are you saying that the distinction between simply posting such information and “doxxing” depends on the intent or mental state of the person doing the posting?
Just telling you what I observed.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 09:14:32 AM
He went to another board to gather information about Prof. Weinstein and then posted it here and began using derogatory nicknames based on that information in his abusive posts.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 09:15:46 AM
Just telling you what I observed.Well, if you are moderator, is such “doxxing”, or posting of publicly available information, permitted here or not?
Inquiring minds want to know…
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 09:18:21 AM
I will also note that if simply posting legally obtained public information about someone is defined as “doxxing” when the intent of the poster is to cause harm to another poster, of some form, then what Number7 with Prof. Weinstein is clearly doxxing by that definition.
He went to another board to gather information about Prof. Weinstein and then posted it here and began using derogatory nicknames based on that information in his abusive posts.
Whatever Pete. You seem to be consumed with N7 which is a bit odd. Please fill out this report and submit it:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fbutthurt_report_form_post_it_notes_4_x_6_post_it_notes-raddd04e820fc4cba972e0091147f8ba1_eabgr_704.jpg%3Frlvnet%3D1&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=bd0a90c168ef8cde0ea3407c4290d002e4263df26b03f7eb86ac54753e28e355)
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 09:22:07 AM
Whatever Pete.You still haven’t answered the question about whether posting publicly available information is permitted or not.
I think that is a bit concerning coming from a moderator of a forum that supposedly has a free speech policy.
Indeed it strikes me that the policy here is that posting such information is permitted if the moderators agree with your politics and you are one of their “pets”. OTOH, it is not permitted if the moderators disagree with your politics.
In other words, an awful lot like a lot of places, such as FB or PilotsPlace.
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 10:22:49 AM
I think that was the user’s primary posts. It is highly likely that John Long was a user on the board and certainly a well known user on this and other aviation boards. So I would not say it qualifies as random nonsense. It appears that Brian (or whomever) on PilotsPlace was banning doxxing.
Ok - and tbh I'd support that policy on ANY board. But it's not the same thing as banning someone for refusing to "play nicely".
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 10:29:26 AM
Quote
Doxing or doxxing is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet and without their consent.[1][2][3] Historically, the term has been used to refer to both the aggregation of this information from public databases and social media websites (like Facebook), and the publication of previously private information obtained through criminal or otherwise fraudulent means (such as hacking and social engineering).[citation needed]
The first definition clearly includes information that is available publicly, even though it might take a lot of work to compile it.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 10:34:20 AM
Ok - and tbh I'd support that policy on ANY board. But it's not the same thing as banning someone for refusing to "play nicely".Certainly the latter is much broader and thus not the same.
As illustrated above in the discussion with Lucifer, one issue I have with both is that they both involve a very subjective judgement call. And that then leads to the imposition of political biases. It is almost impossible to be objective in moderation without some clearly defined rules. And even then it is difficult and frankly a lot of work.
This is why I stopped posting at PoA. It became clear they were assuming to know the state of mind of the speaker in making their decisions.
If one restricts “doxxing” to posting illegally obtained information, then I think the case is clearer.
Personally I have never been able to come up with a good natural rights based explanation to object morally to posting publicly available information. There can be other reasons that the admins of a board want to impose - such as politeness - but I can’t think of a good moral reason to object.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 10:43:16 AM
With the usual caveats about Wikipedia, here is their definition of doxxing:That latter appears to agree with other dictionaries as well.
The first definition clearly includes information that is available publicly, even though it might take a lot of work to compile it.
So using that definition, is such posting allowed here on PilotSpin or not?
We still don’t have a clear answer from the moderator Lucifer. For the reasons I noted above, that makes the application which has occurred here in PilotSpin quite subjective and essentially arbitrary.
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 11:15:47 AM
That latter appears to agree with other dictionaries as well.
So using that definition, is such posting allowed here on PilotSpin or not?
We still don’t have a clear answer from the moderator Lucifer. For the reasons I noted above, that makes the application which has occurred here in PilotSpin quite subjective and essentially arbitrary.
Okay I'm confused. What "application" occurred here at PilotSpin? Are you referring to the fact that N7 allegedly doxxed Prof. W with impunity? (I say allegedly, because I wasn't around at the time and can't comment on what happened here. I do know what handle Prof. W posted under, but am not sure that his identity was ever shared publicly - I actually met Prof. W at least once at a fly-in, maybe twice as he was not that far away from where I was based at the time.)
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 11:24:39 AM
Okay I'm confused. What "application" occurred here at PilotSpin? Are you referring to the fact that N7 allegedly doxxed Prof. W with impunity? (I say allegedly, because I wasn't around at the time and can't comment on what happened here. I do know what handle Prof. W posted under, but am not sure that his identity was ever shared publicly - I actually met Prof. W at least once at a fly-in, maybe twice as he was not that far away from where I was based at the time.)Yes, that is the doxxing I am referring to.
Let’s be precise about the facts. I will refer here to Prof. Weinstein as such and not his username since it is unclear to me if such doxxing is permitted here.
I can provide you with references to the posts if you like, but here is what happened.
N7 had been engaged in a long and personally abusive set of discussions with Prof. W who was using his alias at the time. N7 then went to PoA and looked at posts by Prof. W under his alias which mentioned a book he had published by title. He then apparently went to Amazon or some similar site to identify the author of the book. Of note, N7 had been banned from PoA at this time by the moderators, but of course it is a publicly readable forum.
After this, N7 continued for several years to engage in abusive posts with Prof. W and began using a diminutive of his first name to belittle him.
I think this rather clearly is doxxing per the definitions quoted above. Would you agree? If not, what is the pertinent distinction?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on August 03, 2025, 11:40:10 AM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 11:52:31 AM
Name someone that N7 hasn't posted about in that manner?
Actually he is fairly selective. As noted by Rush, Becky and others, he has never posted this way about them or any other woman so far as I know. He has tended to react his way to people that don’t go along with his ultra-conservative views. He has posted this way about you as well Eppy.
Quote
I realize you hold some personal feelings about N7 here but is that a reason to suddenly show up again and start a shit storm?
So far I think this has been a rather polite discussion about an important issue. Namely, is doxxing permitted by the rules here or not? We still don’t have a clear answer from the moderator Lucifer and this should be a simple answer.
I do understand it is likely an uncomfortable question for the many here who post under pseudonyms. And especially those who like to engage in personally abusive behavior under cover of them (and I do not include either you Eppy or azure in that category).
Please also note, I am not the one who started inquiring about this behavior.
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 12:08:58 PM
Yes, that is the doxxing I am referring to.
Let’s be precise about the facts. I will refer here to Prof. Weinstein as such and not his username since it is unclear to me if such doxxing is permitted here.
Even if it were, I commend you for respecting his privacy on the matter (to the extent that it exists, or that he cares - other facts I'm not in possession of). It's why I referred to him by his name as well, and not his handle.
Quote
I can provide you with references to the posts if you like, but here is what happened.
I'd rather not delve into the gory details...
Quote
N7 had been engaged in a long and personally abusive set of discussions with Prof. W who was using his alias at the time. N7 then went to PoA and looked at posts by Prof. W under his alias which mentioned a book he had published by title. He then apparently went to Amazon or some similar site to identify the author of the book. Of note, N7 had been banned from PoA at this time by the moderators, but of course it is a publicly readable forum.
Ok, full stop here. If Michael posted the title of a book he'd written on a publicly readable forum like PoA, then either he committed a grievous error or he casually forfeited his right to privacy as to his identity. So then we have a case where what N7 did - accepted as fact for the sake of argument - falls under the first definition (revealing even publicly available information), but not the second (according to which the revealed information has to be obtained by illegal or fraudulent means). Given that, I'm not in the least surprised that no action was taken against N7, even if doxxing by the second definition is grounds for being banned here. This board seems to have very little if any moderation, and lots of behavior that would earn a banning on, say, PoA (leaving politics aside) don't even merit a comment from the moderators here.
Quote
After this, N7 continued for several years to engage in abusive posts with Prof. W and began using a diminutive of his first name to belittle him.
Now that I think about it, I believe I remember someone here calling him Mikey, yes. Didn't think anything of it at the time and given what you said about Prof. W's post on PoA, I still don't. There's conduct that's actionable (by banning) and there's conduct that's just uncivil and basically being an asshole.
How did Michael react here when N7 posted his identity?
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 12:13:05 PM
Actually he is fairly selective. As noted by Rush, Becky and others, he has never posted this way about them or any other woman so far as I know.
Ummm... ::)
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 12:16:20 PM
If doxxing is not tolerated here, is that if it's by the first definition, or only if it's by the second?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 12:23:27 PM
Ok, full stop here. If Michael posted the title of a book he'd written on a publicly readable forum like PoA, then either he committed a grievous error or he casually forfeited his right to privacy as to his identity. So then we have a case where what N7 did - accepted as fact for the sake of argument - falls under the first definition (revealing even publicly available information), but not the second (according to which the revealed information has to be obtained by illegal or fraudulent means).
Agreed, I think what N7 did is doxxing under the first definition and not under the second.
Quote
How did Michael react here when N7 posted his identity?
In general he would leave a conversation and stop his abuse (mild by comparison to that of N7) when addressed by his real name.
All the above notwithstanding, I'd like to know the answer to Peter's question too (not that I intend to dox anyone ;).
If doxxing is not tolerated here, is that if it's by the first definition, or only if it's by the second?
Hear, hear!
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 12:24:21 PM
Ummm... ::)Ah, but N7 likely did not know your gender!
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 01:18:52 PM
All the above notwithstanding, I'd like to know the answer to Peter's question too (not that I intend to dox anyone ;).
If doxxing is not tolerated here, is that if it's by the first definition, or only if it's by the second?
I'll ask the site owner next time I see him.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 01:20:15 PM
Agreed, I think what N7 did is doxxing under the first definition and not under the second.
In general he would leave a conversation and stop his abuse (mild by comparison to that of N7) when addressed by his real name.
Hear, hear!
Ah, but N7 likely did not know your gender!
You have this weird obsession with N7. Very strange.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 01:24:37 PM
I'll ask the site owner next time I see him.
Please do. I think it would be good to have a consistent set of standards.
You have this weird obsession with N7. Very strange.
Why do you find it strange? He has been quite exceptionally abusive to me and others. Seems quite appropriate to me. He invited such attention and turnabout is fair play.
If you behave as N7 has, then people may be motivated to focus some unfriendly attention on you. If you don't like that, then don't engage in such abusive behavior. It is really very simple.
Also, you are the one who asked about these behaviors I had observed. Is it strange that you continue to ask about such things?
Frankly, I am fairly certain you have known who N7 is for some time and appear to be fairly close to one another, almost neighbors. Thus as moderator you likely should recuse yourself from decisions about his posts if you consider him your friend.
I had the same experience on PoA, where a moderator essentially told me that they were deleting a post about a user because the user was their friend. They didn't like it when I pointed out that seemed to be what was happening.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 01:32:45 PM
Please do. I think it would be good to have a consistent set of standards.
Why do you find it strange? He has been quite exceptionally abusive to me and others. Seems quite appropriate to me. He invited such attention and turnabout is fair play.
Don't know how to put someone on ignore? Or is it the sparing that you really want?
He hasn't chimed in so it's apparent he really doesn't care about your opinion.
Also, you are the one who asked about these behaviors I had observed. Is it strange that you continue to ask about such things?
I asked because of the phantom poster, who you claimed emailed you the information. Do you find it a bit strange this person posted that info here, on TPP and other forums but not yours? And supposedly he emailed it to you directly? Strange.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 01:40:09 PM
Don't know how to put someone on ignore? Or is it the sparing that you really want?
He hasn't chimed in so it's apparent he really doesn't care about your opinion.
It is perfectly fine with me if he completely ignores me. Great.
I just don't think it is appropriate to sit and abuse people like that in a public forum. I think it is wrong no matter who it is directed against. And especially so if you do so in a cowardly manner under cover of a pseudonym as N7 was doing.
Quote
I asked because of the phantom poster, who you claimed emailed you the information. Do you find it a bit strange this person posted that info here, on TPP and other forums but not yours? And supposedly he emailed it to you directly? Strange.
No, I don't find it strange because N7 was never so far as I know on flyersforum. I imagine he didn't want to potentially reveal his identity there. Though neither Jim nor I would use information obtained as administrators there to dox someone in any case.
But it seems this has crossed in the ether. So let me ask - how long have you known who N7 is? Do you consider him a friend? And if so, don't you think you should recuse yourself from moderation decisions about his posts?
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 01:46:32 PM
I just don't think it is appropriate to sit and abuse people like that in a public forum. I think it is wrong no matter who it is directed against. And especially so if you do so in a cowardly manner under cover of a pseudonym as N7 was doing.
So now you're the moral moderator? Nice.
No, I don't find it strange because N7 was never so far as I know on flyersforum. I imagine he didn't want to potentially reveal his identity there. Though neither Jim nor I would use information obtained as administrators there to dox someone in any case.
So you are vetting all the members on your forum? Are they aware?
But it seems this has crossed in the ether. So let me ask - how long have you known who N7 is? Do you consider him a friend? And if so, don't you think you should recuse yourself from moderation decisions about his posts?
He's a forum member, just like you. And how this forum is run is actually none of your business. Would you welcome the owner of PS to come over and constantly deride how you operate your forum?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 01:54:20 PM
So now you're the moral moderator? Nice.
Not a moral moderator on any forum. However I never fail to pass moral judgement personally and sometimes take what I consider to be appropriate action based on that conclusion.
An unrelated example: I have several ongoing lawsuits against people who converted some cryptocurrency and refused to give it back. I will not make money on those lawsuits even after winning. I did it because I think it is morally wrong to claim to be a libertarian and then turn around and convert other people's property.
Quote
So you are vetting all the members on your forum? Are they aware?
Boy, you really are jumping to conclusions there. Where on earth would you get that idea? Anyone can join and post what they want. And anyone can choose to block them based on their moral or other judgement.
Quote
He's a forum member, just like you. And how this forum is run is actually none of your business. Would you welcome the owner of PS to come over and constantly deride how you operate your forum?
Sure, he is welcome to come over and comment about it all he wants. We would welcome the discussion.
I do think that if a forum like PilotSpin is going to claim to not have moderation except for spam then it should stick to that. Or not claim that.
In this case, the question that is being asked is whether doxxing someone per definition #1 is permitted or not.
I also think that it is a reasonable expectation of people that moderation, when it is applied, is applied objectively. If you are a friend of N7, then to be objective you need to recuse yourself from moderation decisions regarding his posts. Otherwise any claim to objective application of the moderation rules is lost.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 02:09:34 PM
Boy, you really are jumping to conclusions there. Where on earth would you get that idea? Anyone can join and post what they want. And anyone can choose to block them based on their moral or other judgement.
Then why can't you accept that concept here? PS has the exact same deal
I do think that if a forum like PilotSpin is going to claim to not have moderation except for spam then it should stick to that. Or not claim that.
In this case, the question that is being asked is whether doxxing someone per definition #1 is permitted or not.
Again, it appears you are disgruntled at how this forum works. That seems to be an ongoing trait of yours with regards to other forums as well. Just an observation.
I also think that it is a reasonable expectation of people that moderation, when it is applied, is applied objectively. If you are a friend of N7, then to be objective you need to recuse yourself from moderation decisions regarding his posts. Otherwise any claim to objective application of the moderation rules is lost.
Again, your problem lies with how this forum is operated and that you don't have any say in it. And again, this is not a first for you.
Sit back, post and enjoy. Learn how to use the ignore feature if you wish.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 02:25:23 PM
Then why can't you accept that concept here? PS has the exact same deal
Not quite the same. Firstly, PS has some moderation, FF has none. Secondly, FF provides bidirectional blocks, PS is only one directional. Bidirectional, as shown on MeWe, is much more effective at providing user level control of flame wars.
That said, it appears the users here want some moderation and only unidirectional blocks. That is one reason I gave up on trying to interject more aviation related material here at PS as I had at the beginning.
Quote
Again, it appears you are disgruntled at how this forum works. That seems to be an ongoing trait of yours with regards to other forums as well.
You are correct. I dislike non-objective moderation in all forms.
Quote
Sit back, post and enjoy. Learn how to use the ignore feature if you wish.
Thanks for the invite. As you may have noticed, I don’t post here much any more. That is because there is little aviation content and the moderation appears non-objective and politically biased.
In this case, you asked what I observed and I have explained.
How about you reveal potential conflicts of interest regarding N7 and then clarify with the owner whether doxxing of public information is permitted and then clean up past moderation decisions per whatever the policy is going to be?
I think that would help posters here understand better what is and is not permitted. It would also likely help PS lose its reputation as a place for a bunch of far right conservatives to spout off and abuse anyone with a different perspective. Of course, you and the owner may be fine with that perception.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 02:33:54 PM
Not quite the same. Firstly, PS has some moderation, FF has none. Secondly, FF provides bidirectional blocks, PS is only one directional. Bidirectional, as shown on MeWe, is much more effective at providing user level control of flame wars.
That said, it appears the users here want some moderation and only unidirectional blocks. That is one reason I gave up on trying to interject more aviation related material here at PS as I had at the beginning.
You are correct. I dislike non-objective moderation in all forms.
Thanks for the invite. As you may have noted, I don’t post here much any more. That is because there is little aviation content and the moderation appears non-objective and politically biased.
In this case, you asked what I observed and I have explained.
How about you reveal potential conflicts of interest regarding N7 and then clarify with the owner whether doxxing of public information is permitted and then clean up past moderation decisions per whatever the policy is going to be?
I think that would help posters here understand better what is and is not permitted. It would also likely help PS lose its reputation as a place for a bunch of far right conservatives to spout off and abuse anyone with a different perspective. Of course, you and the owner may be fine with that perception.
Yep, same stuff you were spouting off about when you first arrived. Once you don't get your way, off you go. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
Actually, with all of the traffic that FF generates it's little wonder you have time to come here and complain. ;)
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 02:40:55 PM
Yep, same stuff you were spouting off about when you first arrived. Once you don't get your way, off you go. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.Nice attempt to deflect and avoid revealing your potential conflicts of interest with respect to N7.
Actually, with all of the traffic that FF generates it's little wonder you have time to come here and complain. ;)
How long have you known him? Is he what you would consider your friend?
I tried rather hard to get more aviation content here as PS was introduced to me as a place without biased moderation that might be good. Sadly it seems it is largely as its reputation - a place for far right conservatives to argue about whose political and moral intuitions or feelings are superior.
It is I suppose good as an outlet for that sort of thing. I don’t have much interest or time for that. At core, PS doesn’t even have high level political or moral discussions. I suppose most online fora do not.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 02:45:18 PM
Nice attempt to deflect and avoid revealing your potential conflicts of interest with respect to N7.
How long have you known him? Is he what you would consider your friend?
I tried rather hard to get more aviation content here as PS was introduced to me as a place without biased moderation that might be good. Sadly it seems it is largely as its reputation - a place for far right conservatives to argue about whose political and moral intuitions or feelings are superior.
It is I suppose good as an outlet for that sort of thing. I don’t have much interest or time for that.
Whatever Pete. Go play your silly games elsewhere.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 02:46:57 PM
Whatever Pete. Go play your silly games elsewhere.No, since you asked your original question. I think I will continue to point out how you have conflicts of interest with respect to moderation of N7 posts and will not resolve them. Sort of important for other posters to know that I think.
You let N7 sit there and dox Prof Weinstein and abuse him for years. Then you try to prevent the doxxing of N7.
Why did you do that and continue to try and deflect it? Likely because N7 is your friend and you largely agree with his politics and find his abuse of others you disagree with sort of amusing.
Post by: Bob Noel on August 03, 2025, 03:32:29 PM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 03:40:17 PM
I suspect that he finds a number of other things amusingLikely so Bob, likely so.
What I don’t find amusing is people claiming a forum has only moderation of spam and then a moderator performing biased moderation to protect a friend while trying to deflect and avoid admitting it.
Let’s just be upfront about these things and disclose potential conflicts of interest. That is the honest and honorable way of dealing with these situations.
Also, how often do people on this forum complain about the legacy media or moderators on other aviation forums being biased. And then we see this type of moderation here?
Do you think that is a good idea or situation?
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 03:49:59 PM
Likely so Bob, likely so.
What I don’t find amusing is people claiming a forum has only moderation of spam and then a moderator performing biased moderation to protect a friend while trying to deflect and avoid admitting it.
Let’s just be upfront about these things and disclose potential conflicts of interest. That is the honest and honorable way of dealing with these situations.
Also, how often do people on this forum complain about the legacy media or moderators on other aviation forums being biased. And then we see this type of moderation here?
Do you think that is a good idea or situation?
You keep assuming it was me that moderated (banned) some lunatic from doxxing a forum member. There are some other moderators here as well.
Your diatribes are really getting old Pete. For someone who doesn't like this forum you seemed consumed with it.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 03:52:16 PM
You keep assuming it was me that moderated (banned) some lunatic from doxxing a forum member. There are some other moderators here as well.
Your diatribes are really getting old Pete. For someone who doesn't like this forum you seemed consumed with it.
Again a good attempt at deflection Lucifer. I don’t think it is fooling anyone.
You are the one who has been continuously deflecting and refusing to deal with the issue and answer some simple questions. Like -
How close do you live to N7?
How long have you known him?
Do you consider him a friend?
Given your physical proximity to him and this ongoing deflection, I have to start wondering if ‘Lucifer’ is another alias for N7? Given his past abuse of you, that initially strikes me as unlikely, but perhaps it has been a long game.
Are you finding this amusing? It certainly does not appear so, though I guess Bob thinks you might.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 03:54:18 PM
Again a good attempt at deflection Lucifer. I don’t think it is fooling anyone.
You are the one who has been continuously deflecting and refusing to deal with the issue and answer some simple questions. Like -
How close do you live to N7?
How long have you known him?
LOL. Do you still beat your wife Pete?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 03:56:28 PM
LOL. Do you still beat your wife Pete?Another good attempt at deflection Lucifer.
So let’s ask again -
How close do you live to N7?
How long have you known him?
Do you consider him a friend?
Easy questions that should have easy answers. I bet we will never get an answer and that is because the answers will show you have engaged in very biased moderation to protect your friend.
And I will likely keep asking them so long as you want to keep deflecting. My suggestion would be to simply leave it alone Lucifer and we will all be able to draw our own conclusions about what has likely been going on here.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 04:02:08 PM
Given your physical proximity to him and this ongoing deflection, I have to start wondering if ‘Lucifer’ is another alias for N7? Given his past abuse of you, that initially strikes me as unlikely, but perhaps it has been a long game. Certainly N7 has gone to great lengths with this over the years.
Post by: Lucifer on August 03, 2025, 04:14:53 PM
How close do you live to N7?
How long have you known him?
Do you consider him a friend?
Ask you email buddy since doxxing seems to be his specialty.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 04:17:26 PM
Ask you email buddy since doxxing seems to be his specialty.I guess I could try to contact this person if I can find the email.
Would you like someone to dox you Lucifer? Or do you want to tell us who you really are? Or do you prefer to keep hiding behind your mildly cowardly pseudonym?
At least you are not hiding behind it to be abusive, like N7, I will give you that.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 04:23:07 PM
How close do you live to N7?
How long have you known him?
Do you consider him a friend?
Post by: azure on August 03, 2025, 05:29:53 PM
Ah, but N7 likely did not know your gender!
Or maybe he didn't care. The other women here are in much closer agreement with N7 as a rule than I am, so they sort of set the standard. Woman or man, to him, I'm a liberal, and so I'm fair game as much as Prof W was. ::)
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on August 03, 2025, 07:15:44 PM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 03, 2025, 07:22:14 PM
Peter, do you know why this board was created? That would answer why there isn't a lot of aviation content here.I think I do Eppy, but please feel free to enlighten me further. I believe it was created when the SpinZone in PoA was shut down. It was to provide a forum for pilots free from the somewhat overbearing and left biased moderation at PoA.
Originally it was going to be completely unmoderated. But then a lot of outright spam started interfering. So some moderators were appointed who were only going to moderate outright spammers.
In my time on this board I think I have seen a decrease in aviation content. But hey, I guess the users mostly don’t want that.
Post by: Little Joe on August 04, 2025, 03:28:09 AM
Does anyone disagree that political talk interferes with friendships more today than in the past? I personally believe that is true and I don't like it. I liked the old days when I could joke with those on the other side of the political aisle. You can't do that today.
So I come here under an anonymous screen name and enjoy the un moderated political discussion. You can't have hard feelings towards someone if you don't know who they are and that makes it easier to maintain friendships with other pilots that have different political views. And unless you are on the very far left or the very far right, that is what most people want.
Post by: azure on August 04, 2025, 05:56:01 AM
Does anyone disagree that political talk interferes with friendships more today than in the past? I personally believe that is true and I don't like it. I liked the old days when I could joke with those on the other side of the political aisle. You can't do that today.
Nope, I agree 100%, and I don't like it either. It has gotten to the point where many - maybe even most - people see anyone on the other side of the aisle as not just wrong or misguided but actually evil. That makes it nearly impossible for people with opposing political views to become or stay friends, and it's definitely strained my friendship with Brian.
Anyone recognize the name John Corvino? How about Glenn Stanton? Corvino is an out gay philosophy professor in Detroit, Stanton is a prominent member of Focus on the Family who has argued and lobbied against same-sex marriage. It's hard to believe today, but the two are friends and are able to keep their strong disagreements separate from their social interactions. I used to think Corvino was either dishonest or crazy, but today I think both of them are among the best role models we have for how to make friends across the aisle.
Post by: Rush on August 04, 2025, 07:10:01 AM
Nope, I agree 100%, and I don't like it either. It has gotten to the point where many - maybe even most - people see anyone on the other side of the aisle as not just wrong or misguided but actually evil. That makes it nearly impossible for people with opposing political views to become or stay friends, and it's definitely strained my friendship with Brian.
Prerequisite to war.
Post by: Little Joe on August 04, 2025, 07:55:49 AM
Prerequisite to war.Yeah, war is good!
Quote
I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL."
Post by: Lucifer on August 04, 2025, 07:58:23 AM
Post by: Number7 on August 04, 2025, 08:55:10 AM
“Kill ‘em All, let god sort ‘em out!”
Historically the winners write the history of war…
Post by: Rush on August 04, 2025, 10:40:41 AM
"I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL."
That's me when I'm hungry!
The dead burnt bodies are cows, pigs or chickens of course. Usually.
Post by: Little Joe on August 04, 2025, 11:51:57 AM
That's me when I'm hungry!I'm curious if anyone got the reference. As old as everyone here is I thought someone would have finished up the verse.
The dead burnt bodies are cows, pigs or chickens of course. Usually.
Post by: Rush on August 04, 2025, 12:00:54 PM
I'm curious if anyone got the reference. As old as everyone here is I thought someone would have finished up the verse.
I knew you were referencing something but I don't know what. Of course, I can Grok it now...
Edit: Oh my gosh... I should have known. HA HA HA HA!!
Post by: Number7 on August 04, 2025, 12:18:02 PM
That's me when I'm hungry!
The dead burnt bodies are cows, pigs or chickens of course. Usually.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1033874942163096?fs=e&fs=e
Post by: Rush on August 04, 2025, 12:41:52 PM
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1033874942163096?fs=e&fs=e
Did you say cake? Yum.
Post by: azure on August 04, 2025, 12:43:22 PM
I knew you were referencing something but I don't know what. Of course, I can Grok it now...
Edit: Oh my gosh... I should have known. HA HA HA HA!!
I didn't recognize it either, but in 20/20 hindsight, what else could it have been?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 04, 2025, 12:50:40 PM
Does anyone disagree that political talk interferes with friendships more today than in the past? I personally believe that is true and I don't like it. I liked the old days when I could joke with those on the other side of the political aisle. You can't do that today.
I don't think I would disagree. But I would note that this is a problem of very long standing. Thus the prohibition by the Shriner's, for example, on discussing religion and politics at their events.
I think it has gotten worse and attribute that to the fact that the government has become much more intrusive and involved in more of everyone's lives. Consider that 120 years ago the Federal government had essentially nothing to say about what medical treatments you could receive or how you saved for your retirement. Now large portions of those choices are co-opted by the goverment. These are important things to people and so the stakes in politics are much much higher.
I don't think there is any chance of it improving until we return to some of the basic notions that were more common in my youth. People would say things like "hey, it's a free country" and "to each his own". You don't hear that so much anymore.
I guess that is one of the reasons I like living in Arizona and spending time in Wyoming. There is more of that attitude around here.
Post by: azure on August 04, 2025, 01:55:02 PM
I don't think there is any chance of it improving until we return to some of the basic notions that were more common in my youth. People would say things like "hey, it's a free country" and "to each his own". You don't hear that so much anymore.
I guess that is one of the reasons I like living in Arizona and spending time in Wyoming. There is more of that attitude around here.
That attitude is pretty pervasive in New England as well, and it's one of the reasons I like living here (as well as the great hiking ;)).
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 04, 2025, 02:37:20 PM
(as well as the great hiking ;)).
For certain. My wife and I spent two wonderful weeks in New Hampshire in fall 2022 and I did a lot of climbing there back in grad students days.
Post by: Rush on August 04, 2025, 03:31:44 PM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 04, 2025, 04:00:14 PM
Post by: Username on August 05, 2025, 05:06:17 AM
Post by: azure on August 10, 2025, 08:49:27 AM
I'm pretty certain that his "vacationing" the board was mostly about his anger at me over some negative remarks I made about Apple Watch technology last month that he took personally, but I think his problem with me goes back a lot farther than that. I think it really started when I argued that people who have been through a male puberty shouldn't be competing in women's sports. Brian is a strong supporter of trans rights and apparently since I'm part of the LGBT "umbrella", he considers me a traitor to the cause.
With me gone I expect his board will run a lot more smoothly and without any more shutdowns.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 09:15:38 AM
With me gone I expect his board will run a lot more smoothly and without any more shutdowns.
Some people have little interest in polite discussion of differing viewpoints. If you feel like it, come on over to FlyersForum. We don’t censor people at all and actually discuss things like aviation and whatever else the posters want.
Post by: Rush on August 10, 2025, 09:28:14 AM
Well I gave up on TPP last night. Yesterday I tried to introduce a little nuance into a discussion on Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs) and was met with a multi-paragraph post from Brian not only disagreeing with what I had written, but denigrating my food choices and preparation methods as being a major part of the chronic disease problem in this country. I pushed back, unfortunately with a little snark, he responded with an even more personally-directed lecture, and it just went downhill from there and ended with him deleting several posts of mine.
I'm pretty certain that his "vacationing" the board was mostly about his anger at me over some negative remarks I made about Apple Watch technology last month that he took personally, but I think his problem with me goes back a lot farther than that. I think it really started when I argued that people who have been through a male puberty shouldn't be competing in women's sports. Brian is a strong supporter of trans rights and apparently since I'm part of the LGBT "umbrella", he considers me a traitor to the cause.
With me gone I expect his board will run a lot more smoothly and without any more shutdowns.
Okay so he has drowned himself in the Kool-Aid. Trans “rights” means allowing large, burly, muscled males who have higher bone density, wider shoulders, longer arms and legs, larger, more powerful hearts and higher lung capacity, to compete against smaller, weaker females. Not to mention possibly still having a penis to display in the locker room.
Either brain damage, willful delusion, or outright contempt for women. Pick one, because it’s one of those, not about “trans rights”.
Post by: Anthony on August 10, 2025, 10:51:28 AM
Peter, do you know why this board was created? That would answer why there isn't a lot of aviation content here.
This was originally to be POA's Spin Zone.
Also Peter, this site is UNMODERATED, so Lucifer, nor I should really reprimand anyone.
Post by: elwood blues on August 10, 2025, 10:53:36 AM
Like many Leftists, Brian sounds mentally unstable, if not mentally ill.
Yes.
Post by: azure on August 10, 2025, 11:21:10 AM
Some people have little interest in polite discussion of differing viewpoints. If you feel like it, come on over to FlyersForum. We don’t censor people at all and actually discuss things like aviation and whatever else the posters want.
I may just do that, thanks.
I don't think Brian has a problem with polite discussion of controversial topics - he has a problem with ME. He's the most rabidly left/progressive person I've ever conversed at length with. Because I'm lesbian, I think he assumed I'd be similarly left/progressive. He was disappointed, first, to find that I wasn't letting my bleeding heart guide me on the issue of transgender women in women's sports. Then he learned that I consider the national debt an urgent problem and the Democrats' spending habits and pet programs part of the source of the problem, including their unwillingness to tackle entitlements (the infamous "Third Rail" - and admittedly that inertia is not limited to the Dems). Finally, he learned that I hadn't voted for Kamala Harris, and then I instantly became part of the masses of people helping to enable Trump to become dictator for life. I believe that's the issue he's most passionate about now and he considers me on the (quite literal) enemy side.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 11:36:27 AM
This was originally to be POA's Spin Zone.Well Anthony, we know from observation and by admission in this thread that one of the moderators deleted posts by a user that was doxxing N7.
Also Peter, this site is UNMODERATED, so Lucifer, nor I should really reprimand anyone.
So I think that is moderation. And indeed, if it was not you, then it was Lucifer, who appears to have a conflict of interest as a friend of N7 (if not being N7 himself). We still don’t have a clear answer on whether doxxing, that is disclosure of publicly available and legally obtained information on a user, is permitted by the rules here.
Perhaps you can clarify?
Post by: azure on August 10, 2025, 11:40:13 AM
Okay so he has drowned himself in the Kool-Aid. Trans “rights” means allowing large, burly, muscled males who have higher bone density, wider shoulders, longer arms and legs, larger, more powerful hearts and higher lung capacity, to compete against smaller, weaker females. Not to mention possibly still having a penis to display in the locker room.
Either brain damage, willful delusion, or outright contempt for women. Pick one, because it’s one of those, not about “trans rights”.
I pick "willful delusion" as well as a possibility you didn't mention: a choice to devalue one group's rights over those of another. Progressives' attitudes toward transgender people have mostly to do with the notion that they're oppressed by society and therefore deserving of special accommodations. It comes originally from Marxist thought, I believe, as amplified by feminists, especially Black feminists, into the concepts of intersectionality and the "hierarchy of oppression". According to the trans/ progressive narrative, trans women of color (MtF) are the lowest rung on that ladder, white trans men (FtM) a few steps up, but ALL trans people are lower down than all "cis" people. So they're deserving, the progressive narrative goes, of having society be forced to accept them as members of their aspired-to sex in all conceivable situations, including sports where their right to participate conflicts with the rights of other participants to compete on a level playing field. If we remember that trans women are lower on the oppression hierarchy than "cis" women, this is easy to understand: the rights of trans women take priority.
This is an oversimplification: not all feminists agree that all trans people are oppressed by all "cis" people, and 2nd wave feminists (of whom there seem to be few left today) placed anyone reared as a male as above anyone reared as a female on that ladder. But current progressive thinking has totally swallowed the trans narrative.
Post by: Rush on August 10, 2025, 12:04:20 PM
I pick "willful delusion" as well as a possibility you didn't mention: a choice to devalue one group's rights over those of another. Progressives' attitudes toward transgender people have mostly to do with the notion that they're oppressed by society and therefore deserving of special accommodations. It comes originally from Marxist thought, I believe, as amplified by feminists, especially Black feminists, into the concepts of intersectionality and the "hierarchy of oppression". According to the trans/ progressive narrative, trans women of color (MtF) are the lowest rung on that ladder, white trans men (FtM) a few steps up, but ALL trans people are lower down than all "cis" people. So they're deserving, the progressive narrative goes, of having society be forced to accept them as members of their aspired-to sex in all conceivable situations, including sports where their right to participate conflicts with the rights of other participants to compete on a level playing field. If we remember that trans women are lower on the oppression hierarchy than "cis" women, this is easy to understand: the rights of trans women take priority.
This is an oversimplification: not all feminists agree that all trans people are oppressed by all "cis" people, and 2nd wave feminists (of whom there seem to be few left today) placed anyone reared as a male as above anyone reared as a female on that ladder. But current progressive thinking has totally swallowed the trans narrative.
You’re absolutely right. It’s yet another Marxist “Oppressor/victim” polarity.
Post by: Rush on August 10, 2025, 12:17:14 PM
I may just do that, thanks.
I don't think Brian has a problem with polite discussion of controversial topics - he has a problem with ME. He's the most rabidly left/progressive person I've ever conversed at length with. Because I'm lesbian, I think he assumed I'd be similarly left/progressive. He was disappointed, first, to find that I wasn't letting my bleeding heart guide me on the issue of transgender women in women's sports. Then he learned that I consider the national debt an urgent problem and the Democrats' spending habits and pet programs part of the source of the problem, including their unwillingness to tackle entitlements (the infamous "Third Rail" - and admittedly that inertia is not limited to the Dems). Finally, he learned that I hadn't voted for Kamala Harris, and then I instantly became part of the masses of people helping to enable Trump to become dictator for life. I believe that's the issue he's most passionate about now and he considers me on the (quite literal) enemy side.
Wait… you’re lesbian? Did I miss that or know it and forget it? Which is highly possible because I’m becoming more demented by the day. Cool! You have “street cred” then. I’m starting to wonder about Brian now because I can’t picture straight men supporting trans in women’s sports, because straight men are naturally protective of women. Actual women I mean. But I guess the progressive far left males are maybe too low in testosterone to have normal manly inclinations.
And oh yeah, he’s got TDS bad if he blames you for Trump’s win because you didn’t do your duty and vote for Kamala.
Post by: Rush on August 10, 2025, 12:19:28 PM
Well Anthony, we know from observation and by admission in this thread that one of the moderators deleted posts by a user that was doxxing N7.
So I think that is moderation. And indeed, if it was not you, then it was Lucifer, who appears to have a conflict of interest as a friend of N7 (if not being N7 himself). We still don’t have a clear answer on whether doxxing, that is disclosure of publicly available and legally obtained information on a user, is permitted by the rules here.
Perhaps you can clarify?
They are not the same person. They have completely different personalities, not to mention writing styles.
Post by: azure on August 10, 2025, 12:25:25 PM
Wait… you’re lesbian? Did I miss that or know it and forget it? Which is highly possible because I’m becoming more demented by the day. Cool! You have “street cred” then. I’m starting to wonder about Brian now because I can’t picture straight men supporting trans in women’s sports, because straight men are naturally protective of women. Actual women I mean. But I guess the progressive far left males are maybe too low in testosterone to have normal manly inclinations.
And oh yeah, he’s got TDS bad if he blames you for Trump’s win because you didn’t do your duty and vote for Kamala.
I thought I'd posted that before. Yes, I was basically "reared" in the L community (after coming out in my mid-40s) and swallowed the entire 3rd wave narrative hook line and sinker. I really embraced that whole paradigm, though I didn't make the connection with Marxist thought at the time. I could swear I posted that I rejected that way of thinking after moving to Vermont. Maybe it was only on TPP though.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 12:29:10 PM
They are not the same person. They have completely different personalities, not to mention writing styles.Perhaps not. But Lucifer was asked explicitly in this thread to clarify his potential conflicts of interest with respect to N7 as well as the policy on doxxing, and whether he was in fact N7.
He has so far not responded to any of these queries and gone to some lengths to attempt to deflect. We know they live close to each other.
Also bear in mind that N7 has written a number of stories, as you know, so may be adept at adopting different personas in writing.
Post by: azure on August 10, 2025, 12:46:13 PM
And oh yeah, he’s got TDS bad if he blames you for Trump’s win because you didn’t do your duty and vote for Kamala.
Oh, he has TDS bad. It's especially silly because he knows that I didn't vote for Trump either, and that I live in a state that everyone knew was going to go to Harris. Heck, our Republican governor endorsed Harris. He might be thinking that I helped Trump win the popular vote - but it's still silly because the popular vote doesn't determine anything.
It's a little strange though, because there are a number of posters there who are in good graces with Brian even though they admitted to voting for Trump. I think it has to be something about my "slide to the right" that's bothering him.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 12:58:23 PM
It's a little strange though, because there are a number of posters there who are in good graces with Brian even though they admitted to voting for Trump. I think it has to be something about my "slide to the right" that's bothering him.
I agree that you are likely perceived as a “traitor”. People are always hardest on those they perceive that way - it involves a sense of personal betrayal. Evolutionarily speaking, you were part of his tribe and then left.
Post by: Little Joe on August 10, 2025, 01:01:17 PM
Oh, he has TDS bad. It's especially silly because he knows that I didn't vote for Trump either, and that I live in a state that everyone knew was going to go to Harris. Heck, our Republican governor endorsed Harris. He might be thinking that I helped Trump win the popular vote - but it's still silly because the popular vote doesn't determine anything.Liberals like Brian have a real problem when any of their subjects leave the plantation.
It's a little strange though, because there are a number of posters there who are in good graces with Brian even though they admitted to voting for Trump. I think it has to be something about my "slide to the right" that's bothering him.
I for one would like to give you a formal "Welcome back to PS". Even though you "toe the line" here even less than I do, I still welcome your viewpoints, and I hope others do also.
Post by: Little Joe on August 10, 2025, 01:06:50 PM
Well Anthony, we know from observation and by admission in this thread that one of the moderators deleted posts by a user that was doxxing N7.Are you really so anal that you can't see the difference between normal internet ass-holery and doxxing? Doxxing, IMNSHO, is a bridge too far and could put real people in real danger, rather than merely hurting SGOTI's feelings. That should not be allowed, even if the vic is N7.
So I think that is moderation. And indeed, if it was not you, then it was Lucifer, who appears to have a conflict of interest as a friend of N7 (if not being N7 himself). We still don’t have a clear answer on whether doxxing, that is disclosure of publicly available and legally obtained information on a user, is permitted by the rules here.
Perhaps you can clarify?
Post by: azure on August 10, 2025, 01:12:37 PM
Liberals like Brian have a real problem when any of their subjects leave the plantation.
I for one would like to give you a formal "Welcome back to PS". Even though you "toe the line" here even less than I do, I still welcome your viewpoints, and I hope others do also.
Thanks, Joe. :)
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 01:15:02 PM
Are you really so anal that you can't see the difference between normal internet ass-holery and doxxing? Doxxing, IMNSHO, is a bridge too far and could put real people in real danger, rather than merely hurting SGOTI's feelings. That should not be allowed, even if the vic is N7.Sort of bordering on name calling there Little Joe and engaging in a number of fallacies. Nonetheless, I will address your point -
Yes of course there is a difference. However, I don’t see how N7 being doxxed can put him in any danger.
I can see some validity to that argument in the case of law enforcement and even more so in the case of spies. I don’t agree in the case of LEOs with such a ban personally, as they are public servants. However that is sort of irrelevant isn’t it for nearly all the people posting in aviation forums?
I do think the issue should be clarified however for this forum. I know that at FlyersForum we would not delete such posts. Post publicly and act obnoxiously and abusively as N7 has done and you may attract unwanted attention. Don’t want that attention, then perhaps don’t abuse others.
In N7s case, he actually himself engaged in doxxing and his posts were not deleted and his abuse of other posters was protected by the moderators for years. Potentially due to a conflict of interest.
What would be best IMO is that the rule be clarified, potential conflicts of interest in moderation revealed, and then consistently applied.
Post by: Little Joe on August 10, 2025, 01:24:05 PM
Sort of bordering on name calling there Little Joe and engaging in a number of fallacies. Nonetheless,"Sort of" yes, but that is the normal internet ass-holery I spoke of and is not "moderateable" here.
Quote
In N7s case, he actually himself engaged in doxxing and his posts were not deletedI agree with this, but I don't believe that "precedent" is binding here.
Quote
and his abuse of other posters was protected by the moderators for years. Potentially due to a conflict of interest.I share your feelings about N7, but most of his ass-holery is the type that is allowed here. I say that even though much of it has been directed at me.
Perhaps we should enact a provision where a majority of users could vote someone "off the Island". But I don't want to give a specific set of moderators that ability.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 01:30:22 PM
"Sort of" yes, but that is the normal internet ass-holery I spoke of and is not "moderateable" here.You are correct. I point it out because I know you can express yourself more effectively and make coherent points
Quote
I agree with this, but I don't believe that "precedent" is binding here.I share your feelings about N7, but most of his ass-holery is the type that is allowed here. I say that even though much of it has been directed at me.Again correct. However, I do think the rules that exist should be applied objectively to everyone. Otherwise what is going on is the moderators just protecting their friends - sort of like what people complains happens at PoA - right?
Quote
Perhaps we should enact a provision where a majority of users could vote someone "off the Island". But I don't want to give a specific set of moderators that ability.
I agree it would be a bad idea. I would suggest instead clarity on the rule about doxxing, disclosure of any potential moderation conflicts, recusal when such exist, and consistent application of the rules.
Post by: Rush on August 10, 2025, 02:12:55 PM
I thought I'd posted that before. Yes, I was basically "reared" in the L community (after coming out in my mid-40s) and swallowed the entire 3rd wave narrative hook line and sinker. I really embraced that whole paradigm, though I didn't make the connection with Marxist thought at the time. I could swear I posted that I rejected that way of thinking after moving to Vermont. Maybe it was only on TPP though.
You might have and I might have missed it. I too was sort of “reared” in the gay community even though I’m straight. I had a trans friend from childhood but my first legit job at age 16 was at a place that had two gay male employees in the middle of a very melodramatic breakup. It was quite the introduction. My next job at age 18 also had gay people one of whom became my best friend for life and introduced me to libertarianism. Prior to that I was not very political one way or the other but was against the Vietnam War, however had already read Solzhenitsyn so was already against far leftism. (And saw Dr. Zhivago as a kid so hated communism.) I’ve actually never been a radical leftist nor a hard right conservative. I was against the War but I was also pro-life, even marched in a pro-life rally but would have also marched against the war, but never disparaged the soldiers.
Back then the drinking age was 18 so I just ended up going to the gay bars with these guys, met lesbians and more trans through them. I mean, I had straight friends, and there were some other straights in our circle, but most of my socializing was with these “outsiders”, just like how in high school I hung with the rejects, nerds and also gays in one corner of the yard while the popular cliques I never fit in with were elsewhere.
Post by: Lucifer on August 10, 2025, 02:16:13 PM
Well Anthony, we know from observation and by admission in this thread that one of the moderators deleted posts by a user that was doxxing N7.
So I think that is moderation. And indeed, if it was not you, then it was Lucifer, who appears to have a conflict of interest as a friend of N7 (if not being N7 himself). We still don’t have a clear answer on whether doxxing, that is disclosure of publicly available and legally obtained information on a user, is permitted by the rules here.
Perhaps you can clarify?
There are other mods as well as the site admin.
You seem to be upset that someone had post removed. Who was this individual (screen name) and what is your relation to that poster?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 03:00:32 PM
There are other mods as well as the site admin.Another attempt at deflection.
You seem to be upset that someone had post removed. Who was this individual (screen name) and what is your relation to that poster?
What I think is that it should clear is - what the rules are? What the relations of the moderators is to the people being moderated? When recusals are necessary?
Note I am not a moderator here. You, on the other hand, are. Why do you keep deflecting and not answer simple questions.
Usually this occurs when people are trying hide something. Just answer the basic questions.
Yes, I am concerned that a forum which claims to have no moderation, such as stated by Anthony, in fact has moderators who appear to be treating their “pet” users and friends preferentially. That strikes me as misleading at best and deceptive at worst.
Indeed you may be N7, given that you refuse to even confirm that you are not and live close by. That is easy to resolve - tell us who you actually are. But I bet you won’t.
I should think the other users here also will be more than a little upset if it turns out you are N7. If so, you have been playing them for years, pretending to moderate yourself.
Post by: Little Joe on August 10, 2025, 03:27:11 PM
I've wondered about that a few times in the past. But I consider it impossible. Lucifer can spell. N7 Can't. Even if Lucifer was pretending to be N7, I don't think it is possible that he/they could keep their grammatical inabilities so consistent for so long.
I should think the other users here also will be more than a little upset if it turns out you are N7. If so, you have been playing them for years, pretending to moderate yourself.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 03:38:32 PM
I've wondered about that a few times in the past. But I consider it impossible. Lucifer can spell. N7 Can't. Even if Lucifer was pretending to be N7, I don't think it is possible that he/they could keep their grammatical inabilities so consistent for so long.Interesting point. I think it less likely that he is, but a possibility, maybe 30%.
It is curious that Lucifer does not simply deny it though and goes to some length to deflect the question.
Post by: Bob Noel on August 10, 2025, 03:43:14 PM
It is curious that Lucifer does not simply deny it though and goes to some length to deflect the question.
maybe he considers it fun to watch your reactions?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 03:50:37 PM
maybe he considers it fun to watch your reactions?Could be. And hey, if you guys like to have that sort of person as a moderator, completely up to you.
I am just noting what seems to be a fairly clear case of moderators with conflicts of interest and lack of clearly defined rules.
It seems like people here complain about that at PoA a lot, but don’t mind it so much when it agrees with their political biases. People have some clear alternatives but seem to prefer to just complain about it here.
“plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”
Post by: Little Joe on August 10, 2025, 04:10:30 PM
Could be. And hey, if you guys like to have that sort of person as a moderator, completely up to you.I'm not sure what choice we have. Or if we even deserve a choice other than to not participate here.
Quote
It seems like people here complain about that at PoA a lot, but don’t mind it so much when it agrees with their political biases.So what else is new?
Quote
People have some clear alternatives but seem to prefer to just complain about it here.I complain about it elsewhere also.
Post by: Mase on August 10, 2025, 04:10:52 PM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 04:13:31 PM
I'm not sure what choice we have.
You are right in that the setup here will possibly never change. But you do have other alternatives! There is a forum where you don’t have to complain about moderation at all, because you control it.
Post by: Lucifer on August 10, 2025, 04:15:45 PM
Another attempt at deflection.
Not really
What I think is that it should clear is - what the rules are? What the relations of the moderators is to the people being moderated? When recusals are necessary?
Note I am not a moderator here. You, on the other hand, are. Why do you keep deflecting and not answer simple questions.
And who are you to come here and demand answers like a prosecutor? You're supposedly not the aggrieved party, but for some strange reason you are obsessed with N7 and this other poster.
Usually this occurs when people are trying hide something. Just answer the basic questions.
See above.
Yes, I am concerned that a forum which claims to have no moderation, such as stated by Anthony, in fact has moderators who appear to be treating their “pet” users and friends preferentially. That strikes me as misleading at best and deceptive at worst.
Yet you have no proof of your allegations. Just inane ramblings.
Indeed you may be N7, given that you refuse to even confirm that you are not and live close by. That is easy to resolve - tell us who you actually are. But I bet you won’t.
Do you demand your forum users reveal to you their identity? Maybe that's why your forum has such low traffic.
I should think the other users here also will be more than a little upset if it turns out you are N7. If so, you have been playing them for years, pretending to moderate yourself.
For all you know I'm a dog, a very very smart one. ;)
Post by: Anthony on August 10, 2025, 04:33:34 PM
Well Anthony, we know from observation and by admission in this thread that one of the moderators deleted posts by a user that was doxxing N7.
So I think that is moderation. And indeed, if it was not you, then it was Lucifer, who appears to have a conflict of interest as a friend of N7 (if not being N7 himself). We still don’t have a clear answer on whether doxxing, that is disclosure of publicly available and legally obtained information on a user, is permitted by the rules here.
Perhaps you can clarify?
The only posts I've deleted were obvious, really annoying, multiple SPAMS, from Bots, but I can't speak for anyone else.
I think you'll agree, this site is typically unmoderated. Also, I don't recall any deleted Doxxing posts.
I've met Michael and his wife at several fly-ins, and we've always had a nice time in person. However, on the Internet, he can try most people's patience, and like Brian, illogically, emotionally, and irrationally Leftist.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 04:43:54 PM
And who are you to come here and demand answers like a prosecutor?
I am just a user like any other. And I think it is fairly reasonable for such a user to want to know what the rules are. Don't want to violate them after all ;)
Funny how you won't clarify that - especially as a moderator. Is doxxing a user here allowed or not? Simple question.
Quote
You're supposedly not the aggrieved party, but for some strange reason you are obsessed with N7 and this other poster.
Let's be clear here. I am very aggrieved by how N7 is abusive to other posters, including myself. And I think it is quite concerning that the moderators seem to have allowed him to also engage in doxxing, while at the same time blocking the other user who revealed his identity.
Quote
Yet you have no proof of your allegations. Just inane ramblings.
Are you are referring to the question of your identity? As I have noted, I think that is up in the air presently. About a 30% chance that you are N7. A bit more evidence than just ramblings I think. But then I have never observed that you are good at weighing evidence objectively.
Quote
Do you demand your forum users reveal to you their identity?
As you know, of course not. Why do you keep asking that question? Mostly as a red herring I suppose.
Quote
For all you know I'm a dog, a very very smart one. ;)
Woof, woof.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 04:47:44 PM
The only posts I've deleted were obvious, really annoying, multiple SPAMS, from Bots, but I can't speak for anyone else.
I do believe you.
Quote
Also, I don't recall any deleted Doxxing posts.
Well, they were here just like they were on several other sites, including TPP. Someone deleted them. If not you, then who?
And more importantly, are they permitted here by the rules or not?
Seems like a simple question.
Quote
I've met Michael and his wife at several fly-ins, and we've always had a nice time in person. However, on the Internet, he can try most people's patience, and like Brian, illogically, emotionally, and irrationally Leftist.
I have observed the same and found him annoying for the same reason. But I do think that either N7 doxxing him was per the rules or it was not. Which one was it?
Post by: azure on August 10, 2025, 06:13:12 PM
I do believe you.
Well, they were here just like they were on several other sites, including TPP. Someone deleted them. If not you, then who?
And more importantly, are they permitted here by the rules or not?
Seems like a simple question.
I have observed the same and found him annoying for the same reason. But I do think that either N7 doxxing him was per the rules or it was not. Which one was it?
I seem to recall that we've had this discussion before and the upshot was that it's not clear that N7's connecting Michael's screen name to his true identity was actually doxxing, in the sense of revealing something that wasn't already fairly widely known. I don't see how anyone who has revealed his name and place of employment on a publicly readable forum can accuse someone of doxxing him for mentioning that identity on a different forum. If it was done in a "look what I learned about <xxxxxx>" sort of way, but it was not news to half of the readers, then it was assholery as @LittleJoe says, but not doxxing in the sense of something I'd want to be special cased for moderation on a generally unmoderated forum.
I don't know whether N7's true identity is common knowledge here, but if it isn't, then someone revealing it might be crossing the line into actionable doxxing. I see those two possibilities as different scenarios that a reasonable anti-doxxing policy might treat very differently.
While I'd appreciate clarification of the policy as well, I don't see accusing moderators of inconsistent moderation or favoritism as a likely route to getting an answer - it will just make them defensive, as is apparently happening already.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 10, 2025, 09:42:12 PM
I seem to recall that we've had this discussion before and the upshot was that it's not clear that N7's connecting Michael's screen name to his true identity was actually doxxing, in the sense of revealing something that wasn't already fairly widely known. I don't see how anyone who has revealed his name and place of employment on a publicly readable forum can accuse someone of doxxing him for mentioning that identity on a different forum. If it was done in a "look what I learned about <xxxxxx>" sort of way, but it was not news to half of the readers, then it was assholery as @LittleJoe says, but not doxxing in the sense of something I'd want to be special cased for moderation on a generally unmoderated forum.
Previously you declined my offer to provide the exact posts regarding this doxxing and the history. Happy to provide them if you wish.
To be precise. N7 went to another forum, on which he was banned at the time, and looked up Prof. W’s screen name. Using that screen name the Prof. mentioned a title of a book he had published. He then went to another site, likely Amazon, and looked up the author.
He then began using a diminutive form of the Profs first name to continue his abuse and ridicule the Profs number of sales.
I do not believe that the Profs name was general knowledge at the time and it is clear the Prof did not appreciate this treatment or use of his name.
Quote
I don't know whether N7's true identity is common knowledge here, but if it isn't, then someone revealing it might be crossing the line into actionable doxxing. I see those two possibilities as different scenarios that a reasonable anti-doxxing policy might treat very differently.
I guess perhaps you can explain how an objective policy could distinguish between what was done by N7 and the posting of N7s private information.
Quote
While I'd appreciate clarification of the policy as well, I don't see accusing moderators of inconsistent moderation or favoritism as a likely route to getting an answer - it will just make them defensive, as is apparently happening already.
Personally I don’t think that is a maintainable objective distinction. I think the distinction as others have suggested should be based on whether the information is legally obtained.
For example, N7s identity is now fairly broadly known as it was posted on multiple forums and sent to some of us via email. Does that mean posting his information is no longer doxxing now?
But aside from that, yes, it should be easy for the moderators to say what the rule is. If you can figure a way to get that clarified, I think that would be a great thing.
Post by: Little Joe on August 11, 2025, 03:22:18 AM
For example, N7s identity is now fairly broadly known as it was posted on multiple forums and sent to some of us via email. Does that mean posting his information is no longer doxxing now?I got that email. But to tell you the truth, I don't even remember what it said. I just remember feeling revulsion towards the person that sent it.
And just out of curiosity, was it YOU that sent it? I think the evidence points more towards you than it does Lucifer being the same person as N7.
Quote
But aside from that, yes, it should be easy for the moderators to say what the rule is. If you can figure a way to get that clarified, I think that would be a great thing.Why are you so adamant that their must be a rule covering every situation? If someone bullies my little sister and I beat the snot out of them, am I then forced by some rule or precedent to beat the snot out of all bullies that pick on little girls?
With apologies to Blazing Saddles:
"Rules? RULES?? We don't need no stinkin rules".
Post by: azure on August 11, 2025, 04:21:27 AM
Previously you declined my offer to provide the exact posts regarding this doxxing and the history. Happy to provide them if you wish.
I'm still not interested in the details, thank you.
Quote
To be precise. N7 went to another forum, on which he was banned at the time, and looked up Prof. W’s screen name. Using that screen name the Prof. mentioned a title of a book he had published. He then went to another site, likely Amazon, and looked up the author.
He then began using a diminutive form of the Profs first name to continue his abuse and ridicule the Profs number of sales.
Yes, that's what you posted before, and it's consistent with what I remember (N7 or at least someone calling Michael "Mikey"). But I wasn't around for the alleged "doxxing".
Quote
I do not believe that the Profs name was general knowledge at the time and it is clear the Prof did not appreciate this treatment or use of his name.
I guess perhaps you can explain how an objective policy could distinguish between what was done by N7 and the posting of N7s private information.
Personally I don’t think that is a maintainable objective distinction. I think the distinction as others have suggested should be based on whether the information is legally obtained.
My suggested criterion wasn't whether it was generally known, but whether the alleged victim revealed the information themselves. That the information becomes widely known is a fairly inevitable consequence of self-outing.
Quote
For example, N7s identity is now fairly broadly known as it was posted on multiple forums and sent to some of us via email. Does that mean posting his information is no longer doxxing now?
That's a good question - I'd call it a continuation of a previous doxxing, or an ongoing act of doxxing, if N7 never revealed the info of his own free will. I'd substitute "in a way that doesn't invade a poster's privacy" for "legally" and I can live with the ambiguity that some people are more private than others. If the poster himself revealed the information on a publicly readable forum, then it's not doxxing. If the poster was originally a victim of doxxing by that definition, then I'd say intentionally continuing to circulate the information is a form of doxxing.
Quote
But aside from that, yes, it should be easy for the moderators to say what the rule is. If you can figure a way to get that clarified, I think that would be a great thing.
I don't know of any way to *force* them to clarify it. Should they clarify it? IMO yes. But I'm not going to raise a stink if they elect not to.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 11, 2025, 05:19:15 AM
I got that email. But to tell you the truth, I don't even remember what it said. I just remember feeling revulsion towards the person that sent it.I got the same email, though I paid a bit more attention to it. As you know, I have no problem with people like N7 having their public information revealed. I think it shows mild cowardice to go around abusing people under a pseudonym.
And just out of curiosity, was it YOU that sent it? I think the evidence points more towards you than it does Lucifer being the same person as N7.
Why are you so adamant that their must be a rule covering every situation? If someone bullies my little sister and I beat the snot out of them, am I then forced by some rule or precedent to beat the snot out of all bullies that pick on little girls?
With apologies to Blazing Saddles:
"Rules? RULES?? We don't need no stinkin rules".
What do you think is wrong with people doxxing such a person?
So that confirms that this information is now relatively broadly distributed.
I think when people claim that a forum is unmoderated and has no such rules, but then they start moderating and deleting posts that disfavor their friends, while refusing to disclose their conflicts of interest, that is kind of a problem.
As to beating up people who bully your little sister. If the bullying does not involve actual physical attacks, I think there is a rule and law that you will find yourself in violation of if you physically attack the person doing the bullying. And actually if I saw you doing that to someone that was more your sisters age, I might be inclined to use lethal force to stop your attack if you were doing serious harm.
Post by: Bob Noel on August 11, 2025, 05:30:14 AM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 11, 2025, 05:32:04 AM
there was an email about this?Apparently to more than one of us.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 11, 2025, 06:04:12 AM
My suggested criterion wasn't whether it was generally known, but whether the alleged victim revealed the information themselves. That the information becomes widely known is a fairly inevitable consequence of self-outing.
If you prefer to deal with the abstract. I like it. So let’s parse that more in terms of what ‘publicly revealed’ means.
Does it have to be the poster themselves? What if it is a public record?
Does it have to be on the same forum? Or just any forum?
[/quote]
Post by: Rush on August 11, 2025, 06:26:39 AM
What do you think is wrong with people doxxing such a person?
Because N7 is a good person in real life, and has a family, and doxxing people these days with widespread internet reach can cause real life harm to not only the person but their family. Whereas N7’s assholery posting is a case of “sticks and stones” - it’s just words - unless he posts actual threats which he never has.
The “doxxing” of Michael’s book doesn’t qualify, as Michael had already doxxed his own self by mentioning it on another forum. Not saying I agree N7 should have done that but it is not a threat, and not the same thing as outing a lot of personal details about location, etc. I agree with azure’s parsing of the term, and it’s fair for you to ask if this forum has a formal policy about doxxing but also fair if the forum owner doesn’t wish to clarify. Also fair for you not to be here if you don’t like it.
Quote
I think when people claim that a forum is unmoderated and has no such rules, but then they start moderating and deleting posts that disfavor their friends, while refusing to disclose their conflicts of interest, that is kind of a problem.
I don’t know how you get the idea Lucifer and N7 are friends. I haven’t detected any difference in how they relate to each other as opposed to how they relate to anybody else, when controlled for positions on issues. They simply tend to agree on many if not most issues. It seems you are jumping to the conclusion that that means they’re friends or even neighbors in real life, or even the same person who schizophrenically bothers to maintain two carefully curated, very different personalities over years on this little forum, for some reason.
So maybe there is no “conflict of interest” but even if there is, it’s a problem for whom? The only person that matters is the person who pays to maintain this forum. That’s it, none of the rest of our opinions matter. If that person doesn’t wish to clarify, and doesn’t mind whatever consequences might result (such as lower forum participation) then that’s his business.
Post by: Bob Noel on August 11, 2025, 07:06:14 AM
Apparently to more than one of us.
I feel left out. <sniff>
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 11, 2025, 09:04:29 AM
Because N7 is a good person in real life, and has a family, and doxxing people these days with widespread internet reach can cause real life harm to not only the person but their family.
What harms would he or has he experienced?
My view would be that he has been doing things that he is mildly ashamed of. And when other people know you are doing those things in public it is very appropriate. You make your own reputation.
His “assholery” as others put it is part of who he is. As well as the sort of things he writes and sells. I certainly don’t consider him a “good person in real life”. A very obnoxious and strange character yes.
Quote
The “doxxing” of Michael’s book doesn’t qualify, as Michael had already doxxed his own self by mentioning it on another forum.
Let’s parse it in terms of the facts and the rules suggested by azure. It was only the title of his book mentioned on a different forum. N7 then went there, although he was banned, and came back here to use his name and make fun of him.
Sounds like doxxing to me in the general sense.
But perhaps you are suggesting there should be a distinction based on content and not where the information was obtained?
Post by: Rush on August 11, 2025, 09:07:14 AM
I feel left out. <sniff>
Me too. But for all I know I did and I simply CRAFT. But I don't think I did. But maybe I did. Who knows.
Post by: Lucifer on August 11, 2025, 09:11:35 AM
You make your own reputation.
Yes you do. ::)
A very obnoxious and strange character yes.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 11, 2025, 10:05:19 AM
I don’t know how you get the idea Lucifer and N7 are friends. I haven’t detected any difference in how they relate to each other as opposed to how they relate to anybody else, when controlled for positions on issues. They simply tend to agree on many if not most issues. It seems you are jumping to the conclusion that that means they’re friends or even neighbors in real life, or even the same person who schizophrenically bothers to maintain two carefully curated, very different personalities over years on this little forum, for some reason.
We know they live rather close to one another. And there is rather good evidence that Lucifer deleted the posts which revealed N7's identity. Lucifer has also gone to great lengths to deflect any questions regarding his relationship with N7 and potential conflicts of interest. He also refuses to simply answer whether he is in fact N7.
Is that convincing proof. No. But it is suggestive.
N7 is a very strange duck, to say the least. He abused people here for what, 7 years, while trying to hide his identity. I would not put it past him to maintain 2 separate identities in order to play his game.
Quote
So maybe there is no “conflict of interest” but even if there is, it’s a problem for whom? The only person that matters is the person who pays to maintain this forum. That’s it, none of the rest of our opinions matter. If that person doesn’t wish to clarify, and doesn’t mind whatever consequences might result (such as lower forum participation) then that’s his business.
You are correct that the only person who can do anything about it is the owner. And we don't even know who that is!
My understanding is that the way the moderators were chosen was simply those people who posted a lot to start with and there is no mechanism for replacing them.
So yes, about the only thing people can do is choose to go elsewhere. It is a free market for forums after all.
So given that I don't quite understand the complaining about Brian at TPP which started this all. By this reasoning, it is his forum and he runs it as he likes. His moderation rules are clearly stated as beingvague and he makes no claim to not moderating. Unlike say here where there are apparently more stringent rules about doxxing but the claim is there is no moderation except for spam.
Post by: Lucifer on August 11, 2025, 12:19:35 PM
Post by: azure on August 11, 2025, 01:17:50 PM
So yes, about the only thing people can do is choose to go elsewhere. It is a free market for forums after all.
Bingo!
Quote
So given that I don't quite understand the complaining about Brian at TPP which started this all. By this reasoning, it is his forum and he runs it as he likes. His moderation rules are clearly stated as beingvague and he makes no claim to not moderating. Unlike say here where there are apparently more stringent rules about doxxing but the claim is there is no moderation except for spam.
Someone started this thread because they noticed that TPP had a notice about being "on vacation" for a week. It was an odd thing because although Brian has temper tantrums from time to time, he had never shut the forum down without notice before. I offered that I agreed that it was unusual, and that he never answered my FB query as to why he had done it. That seemed even odder, but the mystery was solved when the forum came back up as scheduled, and Brian let loose with a litany of complaints, mostly against me, but also against other board members who he said had sent him PMs. I related that as information, to help clear up the mystery. And when he did it again and followed it up by deleting posts of mine, I shared that fact too - not as a complaint about Brian, but to confirm (since the question had been discussed here) that it was all or mainly because of a personal grudge or "thing" that he had against me.
Information, not complaining.
Post by: azure on August 11, 2025, 01:24:25 PM
If you prefer to deal with the abstract. I like it. So let’s parse that more in terms of what ‘publicly revealed’ means.
Does it have to be the poster themselves? What if it is a public record?
Does it have to be on the same forum? Or just any forum?
I thought I already parsed it. It means "revealed on a public forum or in a public venue by the poster themselves".
There are still cases where it might be hard to enforce or even decide if the policy was violated. What about knowledge that comes from a limited venue like a fly-in? Does it matter whether the venue has a confidentiality policy? (for example, "what happens in Sidnaw (6Y9) stays in Sidnaw")
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 11, 2025, 03:12:31 PM
I thought I already parsed it. It means "revealed on a public forum or in a public venue by the poster themselves".
There are still cases where it might be hard to enforce or even decide if the policy was violated. What about knowledge that comes from a limited venue like a fly-in? Does it matter whether the venue has a confidentiality policy? (for example, "what happens in Sidnaw (6Y9) stays in Sidnaw")
Those are good questions certainly which would need to be resolved to have a reasonable objective policy that other users could could follow.
And what about the case where the information was made available by the poster in public records? That is essentially a public venue if it can be looked up.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on August 11, 2025, 06:29:54 PM
related that as information, to help clear up the mystery. And when he did it again and followed it up by deleting posts of mine, I shared that fact too - not as a complaint about Brian, but to confirm (since the question had been discussed here) that it was all or mainly because of a personal grudge or "thing" that he had against me.
Information, not complaining.
I was just over looking around and saw that you have a lot of contributions there so are leaving all that behind?
I am curious what was it about that forum that attracted you there? Was it Brian’s support for homosexuals? Ability to discuss politics? Or something else?
Post by: Little Joe on August 12, 2025, 03:48:27 AM
I was just over looking around and saw that you have a lot of contributions there so are leaving all that behind?I'm not Azure, but I went there because of the ability to rationally discuss politics, without being banned and without being called a pathetic, pussy Rino with a mental disease.
I am curious what was it about that forum that attracted you there? Was it Brian’s support for homosexuals? Ability to discuss politics? Or something else?
Plus there is some aviation talk, mostly regarding GA related news. And Dr. Bruce spends a lot of time there.
Post by: azure on August 12, 2025, 04:03:01 AM
I'm not Azure, but I went there because of the ability to rationally discuss politics, without being banned and without being called a pathetic, pussy Rino with a mental disease.
Plus there is some aviation talk, mostly regarding GA related news. And Dr. Bruce spends a lot of time there.
Ha! Yes, exactly. The draw for me was the fact that Brian promised only light moderation (per the "one rule") and the fact that you could discuss politics there, in a dedicated subforum that you had to opt in to even see. And yes, there's a lot of aviation discussion as well, as well as discussion of medical and many other non-controversial topics.
To answer Peter, I don't think I'm going back there as long as Brian has a problem with me. If he wants to hash things out I'm always willing to talk. I won't be the one to make the first move, but Brian knows how to get in touch with me if he wants to try to patch things up
Post by: Rush on August 12, 2025, 04:33:08 AM
Ha! Yes, exactly. The draw for me was the fact that Brian promised only light moderation (per the "one rule") and the fact that you could discuss politics there, in a dedicated subforum that you had to opt in to even see. And yes, there's a lot of aviation discussion as well, as well as discussion of medical and many other non-controversial topics.
To answer Peter, I don't think I'm going back there as long as Brian has a problem with me. If he wants to hash things out I'm always willing to talk. I won't be the one to make the first move, but Brian knows how to get in touch with me if he wants to try to patch things up
Far left progressives aren’t very forgiving of apostates. 😟