It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

------FORUM GUIDELINES------

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Playing super sleuth and trying to track down every single person's IP address that is suspected of being a shill by those who do not like to have their opinions challenged is tedious, time consuming and wasteful.


Sure, this info is readily available to the people operating the site.




Let us assume for the sake of argument that there are paid shills. So what? What do they do? They post. What do they post? Opinions and/or facts. Are those opinions and/or facts true or false? It is up to them to provide reasons/evidence why they are true and up to the people who disagree with them to post reasons/evidence why they are not true. The membership at large can make up their mind as to the validity of said reasons and/or evidence based on how well it is presented or explained.


Right, as if it is not a fact they exist.

First off, as I said it might against the rules of ATS in at least some cases.

Second, this is not about ATS members being able to make up their mind, this is about a source of frustration that causes friction.
edit on 3-1-2016 by HardBoiled because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: HardBoiled
Sure, this info is readily available to the people operating the site.


I seriously doubt that no more than a few people on this site are able to do this and once again, it is a waste of time.




Right, as if it is not a fact they exist.


I have yet to see anyone definitively outed as a 'paid shill'. All I see are silly accusations because people get upset that someone else does not agree with them.


Second, this is not about ATS members being able to make up their mind, this is about a source of frustration that causes friction.


Sure it is. If this so called 'paid shill' is presenting facts and evidence that no one else can disprove or rebut what is the issue? The only people I see getting frustrated are those who do not like to get their opinion challenged and resort to rather juvenile tactics.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




I seriously doubt that no more than a few people on this site are able to do this and once again, it is a waste of time.


It is very easy, and I never claimed that more than a few people were able to do so, nor is there a need for that. Apparently this thread was made because time was being wasted with moderating that forum. Removing a large source of frustration by spending a relatively very small amount of time seems very efficient, or at least worth a look.




I have yet to see anyone definitively outed as a 'paid shill'. All I see are silly accusations because people get upset that someone else does not agree with them.


Nice circular logic there.... I am proposing doing more to identify organised efforts, then you shoot it down and use the argument that you never saw a paid shill outed......I mean, you never will if you oppose such action will you?

Try to use some straight logic next time ok?




Sure it is. If this so called 'paid shill' is presenting facts and evidence that no one else can disprove or rebut what is the issue? The only people I see getting frustrated are those who do not like to get their opinion challenged and resort to rather juvenile tactics.


Facts and evidence are no gaurantee that there is no organised and malevolent intent behind them, nor does it mean that someone is not trolling trying to stifle discussion. Maybe you are not aware of that.





edit on 3-1-2016 by HardBoiled because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




I have yet to see anyone definitively outed as a 'paid shill'.


I see now that you responded to this,




Right, as if it is not a fact they exist.


So start looking there.



www.google.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: HardBoiled
It is very easy...


Not with the amount of people tossing around the pejorative.



Nice circular logic there.... I am proposing doing more to identify organised efforts, then you shoot it down and use the argument that you never saw a paid shill outed......I mean, you never will if you oppose such action will you?

Try to use some straight logic next time ok?


Do you really think someone who is a paid disinformation agent is dumb enough to use the same IP as a whole host of other people doing the same thing?




Facts and evidence are no gaurantee that there is no organised and malevolent intent behind them, nor does it mean that someone is not trolling trying to stifle discussion. Maybe you are not aware of that.


So, let me get this straight, what they can be saying is true, but because several of them are doing it they must be shills and must be stopped? Why not disprove what they are saying? If you cannot then who cares what you happen to think they are, the evidence speaks for itself.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord




The biggest problem within the universe of "9/11 Conspiracies" is that nothing of substance, from a conspiracy standpoint, has been proven.


I notice you have said this a few times and I think this is the core of the problem, this might not win me any friends on ATS but since you have also made the statement i will expand a little as i have avoided saying this far.

I think that biggest problem on the 9/11 forum is like I say people don't want to admit when they are wrong, namely those who refute the official historical narrative of 9/11. Now this does not go for everyone as i also said i think there is a small core of us who are well read on this subject from both sides who seem to be able to debate a little more civilly than others. The problem as I see it is those who have seen a few Youtube videos and wade in on debate thinking they are experts who seem to get very offended when their mistakes and inaccuracies are pointed out by those who know what they are talking about

I do also take your point that the terms OSer and Truther are used as insluts at times and as such should not be used in 9/11 discussions. I personally would regard myself as a 9/11 truther in the purest sense that i am a person who seeks the truth behind what happened on 9/11. I would like some reassurance however that Staff keep in mind that some members may very well use the labels like Oser and Truther as a force of habit. I personally would hate to have my account terminated because in the heat of a debate i use the word "truther" out of habit. I would hope these decisions are made on a case by case basis and its not going to be as straight forward as if you use this word we automatically ban you.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: HardBoiled

I have a scenario for you.


You point the shill finger at someone and scream, 'Dis-info agent!!!!!'. Bill checks it out and reports back to you that, nope, they are not sharing an IP with anyone. How long before we get to hear that Bill is a paid agent and ATS is a site shilling for the government?


The people who scream shill all the time would not be satisfied if they had a secret webcam aimed at their on screen adversaries 24/7.


(post by HardBoiled removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

I'm just going to be very clear on this.

If any member.

I do mean, any, single member, flings another insult, or a ad hominem, or a T&C violation, your account will be terminated.

No warnings, no sanctimonious never ending wall of text to explain your actions or to justify them.

Just an account ban.

Period.

Do not reply to this post.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Edited as mods have removed the post i was replying to.
edit on 3-1-2016 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

ATS would never share that info and I would not expect them to, nor is it needed for it to be effective.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: HardBoiled

The mods are removing all of your comments in this regard before i can reply. I think you should take the hint.

(Edited as mods have removed the comment i replied to)
edit on 3-1-2016 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   


The biggest problem within the universe of "9/11 Conspiracies" is that nothing of substance, from a conspiracy standpoint, has been proven.


Do you have a problem with most conspiracies here on this "conspiracy site"?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
I think that biggest problem on the 9/11 forum is like I say people don't want to admit when they are wrong, namely those who refute the official historical narrative of 9/11.

There's a very good reason the "historical narrative" known as the "Official Story" has withstood the test of time: no credible source has proven any of it wrong with confirmed evidence.

Why is that?

Because no credible source has investigated the more plausible theories that are in conflict with the "Official Story."

And (for those reading this, not who I'm responding too) don't try the knee-jerk that media is fully controlled by the government. If not for The Guardian, one of the few remaining very-credible sources, the world would not have been exposed to the reality of a plethora of conspiracies being proven true.




The problem as I see it is those who have seen a few Youtube videos and wade in on debate thinking they are experts who seem to get very offended when their mistakes and inaccuracies are pointed out by those who know what they are talking about

One of the biggest problems in this regard is discernment. Somehow (maybe crappy pictures/videos on social media) most people have lost the ability to discern what is quality as compared to crap. As such, the vast majority of "YouTube video evidence" is based on multi-generational digital videos that have been recompressed several times, and lack the quality to be used as evidence of anything other than; yup, that's a video.




I do also take your point that the terms OSer and Truther are used as insluts at times and as such should not be used in 9/11 discussions. I personally would regard myself as a 9/11 truther in the purest sense that i am a person who seeks the truth behind what happened on 9/11.

A lot of people are unaware (because I rarely mention it) that I was one of the first "Truthers." I was part of the meetings in the basement of St. Mark's church in NYC which eventually became known as "9/11 Truth." At the time, we had no name, and the goal was to get signatures on a petition to treat the attacks as a crime, close the crime scene, get a proper investigation started, and examine the broader breakdown of national security. We were getting close to 100,000 signatures when disruptive elements infiltrated the group with extremist interpretations of the (now proven wrong) conspiracy theories of The Frenchman and WebFairy. The person leading the infiltration was later outed as a government contractor, following orders, as a defense when arrested. But it didn't matter, the "search for truth" had been forever polluted by lies.

Right there is an actual confirmed 9/11 conspiracy that has seen little, if any, real examination.




I personally would hate to have my account terminated because in the heat of a debate i use the word "truther" out of habit.

We're likely going to take context into consideration, however, in the interest of focusing on the subject matter and not each other, it's best to avoid all labels.
edit on 3-1-2016 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The Real Conspiracy

It's been said several different ways, but bears repeating.

All members are entitled, free and encouraged to decide for themselves what to believe or not believe, and every opinion expressed in accordance with the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use is welcome on ATS.

Not welcome are attacks on ATSers for sharing their opinions or deliberate attempts to disrupt discussion. For various reasons, the 9/11 Conspiracies forum is a perennial target of such behavior and requires a disproportionate amount of staff intervention.

We try not to be heavy-handed, can't be everywhere and prefer that members work things out among themselves whenever possible, but that doesn't work against those whose purpose is to undermine the discussion itself.

So here we are.

To those who post in good faith, please know that you are truly appreciated, and we want you to be able to share your views honestly and candidly without fear of harassment, ridicule or retaliation. Please bear with us as we work through this.

To those devoted to discouraging others from being able to share their views on ATS, please know that it is the duty of the staff to stop you from doing that, which is what this is all about.

To those who have been the subject of staff action, please don't take it personally or let it lead you to the Dark Side. We know that nobody's perfect, and we all make mistakes. If you are willing to follow the rules, there's a place for you on ATS, and your contributions are just as welcome as anyone else's, regardless of whatever bumps there may have been along the way. Please don't ever forget that.

We welcome the assistance of all members in alerting us to bad behavior, not feeding it by responding to it directly, and posting unto others as you would have them post unto you.

Thanks to everyone for your patience, understanding and cooperation.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
"There's a very good reason the "historical narrative" known as the "Official Story" has withstood the test of time: no credible source has proven any of it wrong with confirmed evidence.

Why is that?

Because no credible source has investigated the more plausible theories that are in conflict with the "Official Story."


(AND)

"To those who have been the subject of staff action, please don't take it personally or let it lead you to the Dark Side. We know that nobody's perfect, and we all make mistakes. If you are willing to follow the rules, there's a place for you on ATS, and your contributions are just as welcome as anyone else's, regardless of whatever bumps there may have been along the way. Please don't ever forget that. "


I appreciate these sentiments.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord



A lot of people are unaware (because I rarely mention it) that I was one of the first "Truthers." I was part of the meetings in the basement of St. Mark's church in NYC which eventually became known as "9/11 Truth." At the time, we had no name, and the goal was to get signatures on a petition to treat the attacks as a crime, close the crime scene, get a proper investigation started, and examine the broader breakdown of national security. We were getting close to 100,000 signatures when disruptive elements infiltrated the group with extremist interpretations of the (now proven wrong) conspiracy theories of The Frenchman and WebFairy. The person leading the infiltration was later outed as a government contractor, following orders, as a defense when arrested. But it didn't matter, the "search for truth" had been forever polluted by lies.


This is worthy of comment, the site owner of ATS was privy first hand to the manipulation of the truth very early in this whole discussion of 9/11, trying to get to the bottom of things, and getting infiltrated and sabotaged along the way.
Is not the sabotage itself a big clue, even more telling where it came from ?

But you did add.



Right there is an actual confirmed 9/11 conspiracy that has seen little, if any, real examination.


When I first came to ATS that was sort of an issue, but those posters either left or got banned, and the issue really died down.
We would have to have people like yourself and others confirm what happened early on, I don't think there are many left posting on ATS.
edit on 3-1-2016 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join