You silly shill

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Klassified

Mine only looked new. It turned out to be a refurb. Beezer got an office with a frigging w1ndow.

Who knew that "w i n d o w" was a bad word? Huh, that wasn't in the training manual.

Yeah, its a Javascript keyword. If you capitalise the first W it will work...Window.....see.

a reply to: theMediator

You do more damage undetected than if you would do with people watching you. Isn't that obvious?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theMediator

You do more damage undetected than if you would do with people watching you. Isn't that obvious?

Or maybe....they're hiding in plain sight.

MIND = BLOWN.

I need to lie down now.

a reply to: Shamrock6

HAHA...

Or...maybe there is only 1 Shill. The only one needed.

Just one.

Running....the....entire....show.

...only thing One has to do is make everyone think everyone else IS a shill. (i.e. rendering all information unreliable....obfuscating all information to the point that...blah blah blah, yata yata yata.)

^blew my own mind.....couldn't even properly finish that.

a reply to: Jakal26

I've just had to go back to bed

Yeah. Totally agree. You must have been called a shill countless times Network Dude.

It's frustrating because we are here to have discussions. I'm a newcomer to ATS but have already had my motives questioned a few times in the chemtrail sub forum.

In your opinion , does asking some if they are and declaring someone to be a shill the same thing?

I also totally disagree with your stance....Some " debaters " here have clearly not taken a critical thinking course and use a lot of cheat tricks when " debating " such as the red herring, straw man, bandwagoning, etc tactics...Calling someone a shill doesn't necessarily validate or invalidate an argument IMO

I've seen people here tirelessly declare that GMO foods are not dangerous for you despite all the evidence to the contrary(even if you give it to them), ask for evidence then reject that evidence, and continue on with their ramblings......so I do not agree with what you say based on that point..

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
I am the Shillichorn, shilling for free since 1969!

Wow, Eunie.. you mean you've been at this since half-inch wide
tape was the new hot removable media?!
You must also have a room with ROOM. Even my dove's claustro
in here.
And air conditioning in the winter too... I hear those
IBM 3087s can kick out the calories. Salutes the dedication...
and I personally haven't enough political knowledge to blow my
own nose off point blank... much less make anyone else look bad.

a reply to: wyrmboy12

I would say asking somebody if they're a shill is a loaded question. The outright accusation of it seems to occasionally get a post removed. But "simply" asking the question doesn't.

I'm not sure what portion of the OP's "stance" you disagree with. I for one haven't ever seen somebody with a clear lack of debate skill ever accused of being shilltastic, or asked if they were shilling it up. Perhaps it's happened and I just missed it, but I've only seen people who can articulate a point at least fairly well have the accusation/implication leveled at them.

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
In your opinion , does asking some if they are and declaring someone to be a shill the same thing?

Kind of. It depends on how it's asked. Like if you were asked this "are you brain dead?" It's just a harmless question, but it's implication is that you aren't thinking and it's derogatory tone will degrade a polite conversation.

I also totally disagree with your stance....Some " debaters " here have clearly not taken a critical thinking course and use a lot of cheat tricks when " debating " such as the red herring, straw man, bandwagoning, etc tactics...Calling someone a shill doesn't necessarily validate or invalidate an argument IMO

A red herring, a straw man, or bandwagoning are things that can be cited and pointed out. You can clearly quote the posts that fit those descriptions. What you cannot do is prove someone is a shill. Unless you have their pay stub. But the majority of those claims do come from mental midgets who fail in epic proportions in the debate arena.

I've seen people here tirelessly declare that GMO foods are not dangerous for you despite all the evidence to the contrary(even if you give it to them), ask for evidence then reject that evidence, and continue on with their ramblings......so I do not agree with what you say based on that point..

My OP has nothing to do with GMO foods. It's about the use of the term shill, but those who lack the mental capacity to debate. So, I do not agree with your disagreement.

Fair enough , just added as an example a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
Fair enough , just added as an example a reply to: network dude

On the contrary, not fair enough. You raised a good point when you said to the OP:

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
I also totally disagree with your stance....Some " debaters " here have clearly not taken a critical thinking course and use a lot of cheat tricks when " debating " such as the red herring, straw man, bandwagoning, etc tactics...Calling someone a shill doesn't necessarily validate or invalidate an argument IMO

More importantly, some "debaters" (especially some "debunkers") HAVE received formal and informal training in critical thinking, logic, philosophy, the use of rhetoric, etc., and they use their skills in ways that are much less than honest. We know from various reports that government agencies including the military have Psy-Op programs to (as Donald Rumsfeld put it) "fight the net," and in a faceless virtual world these "shills" not only blend in, they have expert skills including how to use a red herring, straw man, and other logical fallacies to their advantage. I get the feeling that somebody here is illustrating a situation on ATS as if a person labelled a "shill" could a) only be mislabelled, and b) is mostly being called a shill because the information presented by the accused shill is always true and others are attempting to do nothing but discredit someone for telling what supposedly is only the truth. That misrepresents why the naming of a member as a "shill" actually started, and given the real dillema of never knowing who your opposition actually is, this light hearted attitude about the matter seems a bit deceptive:

originally posted by: network dude
...when you are called a shill, know two things, first, you have already frightened the opposition with your ability, and two, since the act of name calling is usually the last resort, you have already won the debate.

From all this encouragement to forget about who is or who is not a shill, to shun openly calling someone a shill as a tactic of some kind in a debate--of course, which can ONLY mean the debater is loosing an argument and has only unjustified suspicions "unless you have their pay stub" (as if only irrefutable evidence is paramount), a very interesting inconsistency in your attitude about this little tidbit you dropped not so long ago:

originally posted by: network dude
When the conversation devolves into how things were said, instead of WHAT was said, there is little hope for good debate.

Practically sounds like a slogan, doesn't it? But in comparison, let's look at what you say here in this thread:

originally posted by: network dude
A red herring, a straw man, or bandwagoning are things that can be cited and pointed out. You can clearly quote the posts that fit those descriptions.

Very inconsistent, or did you think that "A red herring, a straw man, or bandwagoning" are not all matters of HOW something is being said? In fact, I'm still stumped about why exactly you tried to distinguish between how something is said and what is being said as if the two are mutually exclusive. Most of the time, particularly in a debate, the two are NOT mutually exclusive. In basic propositions (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4; The pay stubs of two shills plus the pay stubs of another two shills would be the pay stubs of four shills) how you say something isn't quite as important as what you are saying. But this contradiction in your words -- a conversation "devolves" when discussing how something is being said, yet...when it comes to something like a red herring or straw man, i.e., logical fallacies that are indeed a matter of how something is being said --supposedly "you can clearly quote the posts that fit those descriptions" and nobody will complain? I've yet to see it.

I got called a shill for the first time yesterday.
I sort of feel like celebrating, I feel as if my membership is now official.
I got called a shill and accused of denying elite paedophile rings.
If anyone would take just 30 seconds to check out my thread history, they would see just how ridiculous the claim is.
I have been posting threads about elite paedophiles and PIE for a couple years now.
And if someone hasnt done so already, Im about to make a new one about Jimmy Savile. And todays report that says people were repoting abuse from him as early as 1973. I cant wait to get into that one, and its wider implications.
But yeah, do I get an honourary bottle of champers for being called a shill?
Or a Blue Peter badge, come on guys!!

originally posted by: Petros312

More importantly, some "debaters" (especially some "debunkers") HAVE received formal and informal training in critical thinking, logic, philosophy, the use of rhetoric, etc., and they use their skills in ways that are much less than honest. We know from various reports that government agencies including the military have Psy-Op programs to (as Donald Rumsfeld put it) "fight the net," and in a faceless virtual world these "shills" not only blend in, they have expert skills including how to use a red herring, straw man, and other logical fallacies to their advantage.

LOL, you can't make this stuff up. here we have a thread explaining how the weak minded junior debater might resort to pulling the Shill card when backed into a corner, and you post this. Not just shills, but highly trained shills. (I might be blushing) While I have enjoyed the rent free space in your head, being there wasn't by design.

I get the feeling that somebody here is illustrating a situation on ATS as if a person labelled a "shill" could a) only be mislabelled, and b) is mostly being called a shill because the information presented by the accused shill is always true and others are attempting to do nothing but discredit someone for telling what supposedly is only the truth. That misrepresents why the naming of a member as a "shill" actually started, and given the real dillema of never knowing who your opposition actually is, this light hearted attitude about the matter seems a bit deceptive:

originally posted by: network dude
...when you are called a shill, know two things, first, you have already frightened the opposition with your ability, and two, since the act of name calling is usually the last resort, you have already won the debate.

From all this encouragement to forget about who is or who is not a shill, to shun openly calling someone a shill as a tactic of some kind in a debate--of course, which can ONLY mean the debater is loosing an argument and has only unjustified suspicions "unless you have their pay stub" (as if only irrefutable evidence is paramount), a very interesting inconsistency in your attitude about this little tidbit you dropped not so long ago:

originally posted by: network dude
When the conversation devolves into how things were said, instead of WHAT was said, there is little hope for good debate.

Practically sounds like a slogan, doesn't it? But in comparison, let's look at what you say here in this thread:

originally posted by: network dude
A red herring, a straw man, or bandwagoning are things that can be cited and pointed out. You can clearly quote the posts that fit those descriptions.

Very inconsistent, or did you think that "A red herring, a straw man, or bandwagoning" are not all matters of HOW something is being said? In fact, I'm still stumped about why exactly you tried to distinguish between how something is said and what is being said as if the two are mutually exclusive. Most of the time, particularly in a debate, the two are NOT mutually exclusive. In basic propositions (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4; The pay stubs of two shills plus the pay stubs of another two shills would be the pay stubs of four shills) how you say something isn't quite as important as what you are saying. But this contradiction in your words -- a conversation "devolves" when discussing how something is being said, yet...when it comes to something like a red herring or straw man, i.e., logical fallacies that are indeed a matter of how something is being said --supposedly "you can clearly quote the posts that fit those descriptions" and nobody will complain? I've yet to see it.

As you missed the point, probably due to your fascination a select few members here, I'll attempt to explain it for you.

In a debate, there is a process. First, person A brings forth an idea. That idea may or may not be sourced with facts. If the idea is sourced with facts, those facts will be evaluated and if needed, challenged. The ability to defend those facts and maintain credibility is key to having a successful debate. If your beliefs are challenged and you are unable to back up what you have said, the debate might swing in another direction leaving you bewildered and wiping a bit of egg off your face. At this time, it's usually best to regroup and either re-evaluate your position, or find some better facts. Taking choice B and crying like a bitch that everyone is a shill, well, let's just say that isn't the most adult way to deal with such a situation. Luckily, on a site like this, the words and debates are kept. For posterity. And for years to come, passers by might glance into the past and witness the ineptitude of some.

I stand firmly by my stance that those who resort to the use of the term "shill" is due to complete and total ineptitude of debate skills, and perhaps even a window into the lack of intelligence displayed by said poster. Dealing with the facts and information presented is now, and has always been the accepted method of logical debate. Crying about HOW things were said is more akin to 7th grade lunch conversations. (IMHO)

a reply to: OneManArmy

First time huh. Well, you lost your virginity. They say it's never as good as it's hyped up to be.
But keep on task. With an opinion that differs from another, your next go round is very, very close. I can smell it.

originally posted by: network dude
In a debate, there is a process. First, person A brings forth an idea. That idea may or may not be sourced with facts. If the idea is sourced with facts, those facts will be evaluated and if needed, challenged. The ability to defend those facts and maintain credibility is key to having a successful debate. If your beliefs are challenged and you are unable to back up what you have said, the debate might swing in another direction leaving you bewildered and wiping a bit of egg off your face. At this time, it's usually best to regroup and either re-evaluate your position, or find some better facts. Taking choice B and crying like a bitch that everyone is a shill, well, let's just say that isn't the most adult way to deal with such a situation. Luckily, on a site like this, the words and debates are kept. For posterity. And for years to come, passers by might glance into the past and witness the ineptitude of some.

Since when was "successful debate" the prime reason or the expected reason for anyone to participate at ATS?

I did not "miss" anything about whatever point you made in the first post. In fact, my comments couldn't have been made unless I did see the point, and I added a quote from your first point as emphasis. I'm not going to address the obvious use of ridicule in your quote above, I just find it unbelievable how you believe every single member at ATS is supposed to be conforming to what YOU believe is the proper form for a debate--particularly given the real threat of someone who may be masquerading on ATS as a common member but may indeed have affiliation with some agency engaged in unethical activity.

Your suggestion that "defending facts" is omnipotent at ATS debates is also quite misguiding members here because many things discussed on ATS:

1. Are not only matters of pure "fact."
2. Do not always have discernible "facts" to support either side of an argument but people pretend so.
3. Entice people to defend inconclusive research as "fact"
4. Encourage members to defend a "fact" in support of one side of a debate, and the "fact" is true but irrelevant
5. (most importantly) Do NOT lead to one member resorting to "shill" naming only when a fact is defended viciously but is still false. This is important because naming someone a "shill" is also done when the person accused is using the tactics suspected of a paid government operative. Make sure you argue against this because it will be used against you as evidence that you do not believe "shills" exist.

Very telling how you ignored the obvious contradiction in your words that I outlined above. Oh no wait, you REALIZE that you've been caught so you have to say:

originally posted by: network dude
I stand firmly by my stance that those who resort to the use of the term "shill" is due to complete and total ineptitude of debate skills, and perhaps even a window into the lack of intelligence displayed by said poster. Dealing with the facts and information presented is now, and has always been the accepted method of logical debate. Crying about HOW things were said is more akin to 7th grade lunch conversations. (IMHO)

Indeed HOW things are said really does matter.

--and when someone points out that HOW things are said makes WHAT is being said particularly suspect, it should never be associated with "crying" about it, unless you use the tactics of a shill.

a reply to: Petros312

It's not MY interpretation of debate, it's just the way it works. Don't worry, I had to learn it too.

ETA,

Very telling how you ignored the obvious contradiction in your words that I outlined above.

While I did author this thread, it isn't about me.

originally posted by: Petros312

--and when someone points out that HOW things are said makes WHAT is being said particularly suspect, it should never be associated with "crying" about it, unless you use the tactics of a shill.

Quoted just because it makes me smile.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312

It's not MY interpretation of debate, it's just the way it works. Don't worry, I had to learn it too.

All of THIS (your words) is just the way a debate works and not YOUR interpretation:

originally posted by: network dude
In a debate, there is a process. First, person A brings forth an idea. That idea may or may not be sourced with facts. If the idea is sourced with facts, those facts will be evaluated and if needed, challenged. The ability to defend those facts and maintain credibility is key to having a successful debate. If your beliefs are challenged and you are unable to back up what you have said, the debate might swing in another direction leaving you bewildered and wiping a bit of egg off your face. At this time, it's usually best to regroup and either re-evaluate your position, or find some better facts. Taking choice B and crying like a bitch that everyone is a shill, well, let's just say that isn't the most adult way to deal with such a situation. Luckily, on a site like this, the words and debates are kept. For posterity. And for years to come, passers by might glance into the past and witness the ineptitude of some.

You're not fooling everyone. Maybe I should play your game and ask at this point, Do you have any FACTS to defend to back up this claim about how a debate just works? Moreover, do you have FACTS to defend that the bulk of participation at ATS are appropriately matters of "successful debate?"


I repeat, for the sake of staying on topic and addressing but somewhat challenging your point: All matters of "defending facts" do NOT lead to one member resorting to "shill" naming only when a fact is defended viciously but is still false. This is important because naming someone a "shill" is also done when the person accused is using the tactics suspected of a paid government operative (or similar). Make sure you argue against this because it will be used against you as evidence that you do not believe "shills" exist.

I'll say it again in another way: The reason that some people at ATS call another member a "shill" occurs only IN PART at times when they try to defend a fact and someone else shows why the fact defended is actually false. The original post suggests the primary reason for calling someone a "shill" is for the sole purpose of defending a fact and being shown you're wrong, and I disagree because of the reasons I already stated above.

originally posted by: Petros312

You're not fooling everyone. Maybe I should play your game and ask at this point, Do you have any FACTS to defend to back up this claim about how a debate just works? Moreover, do you have FACTS to defend that the bulk of participation at ATS are appropriately matters of "successful debate?"

I decided to wait until you could no longer edit your post which you seem to do often.

I have no facts to back up my statement. It's my opinion. You are free to disagree. Just be sure to offer well reasoned thought as to why.

I repeat, for the sake of staying on topic and addressing but somewhat challenging your point: All matters of "defending facts" do NOT lead to one member resorting to "shill" naming only when a fact is defended viciously but is still false. This is important because naming someone a "shill" is also done when the person accused is using the tactics suspected of a paid government operative (or similar). Make sure you argue against this because it will be used against you as evidence that you do not believe "shills" exist.

I do believe shills exist. I am just not lame enough to think that everyone who disagrees with me is one.

I'll say it again in another way: The reason that some people at ATS call another member a "shill" occurs only IN PART at times when they try to defend a fact and someone else shows why the fact defended is actually false. The original post suggests the primary reason for calling someone a "shill" is for the sole purpose of defending a fact and being shown you're wrong, and I disagree because of the reasons I already stated above.

I have nothing but THE ENTIRE CHEMTRAIL FORUM as my evidence. Feel free to read through it when you find time.