If a place is operating like a warehousing joint

For most of you who just like spending your spare time licking the back of your eyeballs this won't apply because you won't have noticed.

But for some of the other of you, if a site, say a place on the net is: a merchandising site or operates like one
Or
A bad bbb warehousing site for opinion without directly interacting or human beings being upfront about it besides a shady clause that any business front would put but not Lord over its customers and:

The situations caused by such a circumstance are known to propagate, cause, or ignore bad and even possible dangerous mental problems, and:

There is or may be criminal activity on or as a result of a site and not as any effort one can determine to investigate or end such a thing, well,

Shouldn't we have it shut down?????

a reply to: mericks74

so what are u saying? people are too stupid to be responsible by their own actions and may be influenced by such things and if so its not their fault but the place they learned of such things? censoring things is a slippery slope and in the majority of cases 99.99% of the time there is nothing wrong with them. if we allow every person who is offended by something to be capable of shutting something down then we end up in a place where nothing is free to talk about.

so no i dont agree. take personal responsibility for your own actions and if something bothers u dont partake in that conversation or vote with your wallet if its a business. If there is criminal activity report it to the appropriate authorities

originally posted by: TheScale
a reply to: mericks74

so what are u saying? people are too stupid to be responsible by their own actions and may be influenced by such things and if so its not their fault but the place they learned of such things? censoring things is a slippery slope and in the majority of cases 99.99% of the time there is nothing wrong with them. if we allow every person who is offended by something to be capable of shutting something down then we end up in a place where nothing is free to talk about.

so no i dont agree. take personal responsibility for your own actions and if something bothers u dont partake in that conversation or vote with your wallet if its a business.

It's not censoring "things", I never called anyone stupid, calm down, fine if "u" disagree, and what I'm talking about, crime, goes beyond personal responsibility, just as a conversation topic. Don't get too defensive there.

originally posted by: mericks74

originally posted by: TheScale
a reply to: mericks74

so what are u saying? people are too stupid to be responsible by their own actions and may be influenced by such things and if so its not their fault but the place they learned of such things? censoring things is a slippery slope and in the majority of cases 99.99% of the time there is nothing wrong with them. if we allow every person who is offended by something to be capable of shutting something down then we end up in a place where nothing is free to talk about.

so no i dont agree. take personal responsibility for your own actions and if something bothers u dont partake in that conversation or vote with your wallet if its a business.

It's not censoring "things", I never called anyone stupid, calm down, fine if "u" disagree, and what I'm talking about, crime, goes beyond personal responsibility, just as a conversation topic. Don't get too defensive there.

what would shutting down a business be. if u want people to understand what your saying quit beating around the bush and come right out and say what it is u have a problem with. sorry if being blunt bugs u and if u think that makes u think im defensive ok, whatever. but your reply alone is a defensive reply to someone stating their opinion.

a reply to: TheScale

I just said it, and don't accuse me of beating around the bush. And so I got defensive and you didn't or you did and I didn't. I'm still telling you to chill on the attitude. Yes it is a suggestion but you are acting very very defensive. But I'm not here to adopt folks. Okay. People don't say what you just did as a knee-jerk reaction if they're not being defensive. I'm not hearing the personal insults sorry if what I said bugged you..

a reply to: TheScale

A place posturing as not a business that operates as one can't be "voted against" with a "wallet" read the fine print.

As to your edit about reporting things to authorities, you think??

Still don't see why you got so upset. hmm.

originally posted by: mericks74
a reply to: TheScale

I just said it, and don't accuse me of beating around the bush. And so I got defensive and you didn't or you did and I didn't. I'm still telling you to chill on the attitude. Yes it is a suggestion but you are acting very very defensive. But I'm not here to adopt folks. Okay. People don't say what you just did as a knee-jerk reaction if they're not being defensive. I'm not hearing the personal insults sorry if what I said bugged you..

lol you are too hilarious. if your not willing to accept peoples opinions to a question u asked then maybe dont ask the question. there is nothing in those responses that are out of line or would be deemed aggressive behavior. why not pick my brain on my opinion or counter it with a reason as to why its wrong. Debate the argument you are proposing instead of trying to claim something about the other person cause the response you received wasnt what you were looking for.

a reply to: TheScale

Can you please stop pearl clutching and just discuss. You don't see it do you? I'm not interested in conversations for example bud. You're sour and upset for some reason?

Lol are you trying to get me to say uhh "don't derail?" Haha you're a hoot. But I'm not trying to make anything personal, my op was not an invitation to be a punching bag.

originally posted by: mericks74
a reply to: TheScale

Can you please stop pearl clutching and just discuss. You don't see it do you? I'm not interested in conversations for example bud. You're sour and upset for some reason?

Lol are you trying to get me to say uhh "don't derail?" Haha you're a hoot. But I'm not trying to make anything personal, my op was not an invitation to be a punching bag.

so your going to continue making baseless assumptions and not actually debating the question you put forth. you say that u are not interested in having a conversation so why did u even make the post asking a question? what is it you want then? a bunch of people to reaffirm your beliefs? the nature of ATS is to have a debate on subjects. all youve done is make baseless assumptions about me simply for having an opinion that for whatever reason doesnt sit well with you. this is not a dictatorship where the only responses your going to receive are what u deem appropriate. ill wait for one more response that actually debates the opinion i put forth to your question and if u continue with off topic attacks... well then i think were done here

You're obviously very angry about something, but you're also avoiding the issue by couching whatever it is in terms so general that no one can figure out what you mean. If you are going to accuse some organization or person of deeds serious enough to warrant it being shut down, then that person or organization has a right (Yup, it's a right under the Constitution) to face his accuser and answer. You can't expect anyone, here or elsewhere, to agree with you when your evidence is next to nothing.

So, NO, "it" should not be shut down until you can provide sufficient evidence that it should be. If this is all you've got, there is literally nothing you have said that would warrant anyone rushing to your cause.

a reply to: TheScale

You're defending yourself over virtually nothing. Dictatorship?

a reply to: schuyler

I'm not very "angry." I am couching, yes. But I still suggest that the defensive reactions here are out of left field. Why the defensiveness? The attachment? Without investigation, the assumption I've accused anyone hypothetical person? Of what? I mentioned a site. For propriety I am not mentioning the one. Schuler? I thought you were above this but I'm not sweating it the suggestion still is as it stands .

a reply to: mericks74

The situations caused by such a circumstance are known to propagate, cause, or ignore bad and even possible dangerous mental problems, and:

Shut what down. Very ambiguous?

You also authored this thread and showed similar thoughts. Can you be more specific?

There's too much pathology for this dude.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: mericks74
a reply to: schuyler

I'm not very "angry." I am couching, yes. But I still suggest that the defensive reactions here are out of left field. Why the defensiveness? The attachment? Without investigation, the assumption I've accused anyone hypothetical person? Of what? I mentioned a site. For propriety I am not mentioning the one. Schuler? I thought you were above this but I'm not sweating it the suggestion still is as it stands .

Good Lord, what the hell are you TALKING ABOUT. Defensive? Yes, you are. Why won't you come out and tell us what the hell you are TALKING ABOUT. You won't say what the issue is, and when people ask you, you come out with crap like the above. You have yet to say anything cogent and intelligent about whatever issue it is you have. I would not expect this thread to survive.

a reply to: mericks74

Before you have another rant, can you please tell all of us reading what you're on about?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You spotted a connection with similar lines of thought. I admit, yes that I am being ambiguous. I guess it's part way to spur thought about a situation. My bad and I own it. The nature of the situation itself is more important than the naming of names or things.

I can't say 100% that the two threads were in exact reference to one another but there are lines of thought I'll give you that.

We will treat it like a hypothetical. To know anyone else's problems one must clearly investigate their own. If it's worth it. And other than that, this isn't my baby or any big ego deal. The suggestion can float under a rock for all I care. But I hope I spurred thought.

a reply to: schuyler

No actually I am not. Sorry I'm subtle. It will sink in over time or it won't. I'm not that invested in it.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Like I said, stop with the personal insults. It's not a rant.

a reply to: mericks74

If you say so.

Are you going to explain what you're on about or not?

a reply to: mericks74

Way too vague. So I have no idea.
It depends on so much of what you're not telling us.
If there might be criminal activity, then no. If there is criminal activity, and it's not hurting anyone, then maybe, it depends on more stuff we don't know details on. If said site is totally criminal and is hurting people, then yeah, shut it down. Maybe. Depends on the site, the circumstances, intent to harm....?.?.
❓