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.

 

OP/ED: Dark Days. (The black band on ATS)

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Perhaps it is my Sicilian heritage, but to me, it is all about respect. I stopped visiting ATS on a regular basis because I feel that there are a core of people here--regular members and mods included--with a complete lack of respect for people with different views.

And it is not a matter of these people posting a legitimate and well-phrased opposing view. These people have no qualms about dumping all over a thread to the point that it can no longer continue. Sometimes you can ignore them, but other times, the conversation gets diverted and it is impossible to wade through all the trolling.

What makes it seem systemic is that these people are long-term posters and moderators. I have become fed up with posting a controversial question or well-researched response, only to have it become a footnote to shouting and name-calling.

I am not talking about legitimate (and even sometimes heated) debate. I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person--as long as the person I am debating with supports their case with facts and presents a logical argument.

However, when some troll swoops in and craps all over a legitimate debate, it diverts the flow of conversation, just like when some unwanted drunken loudmouth shows up at a dinner party. What makes matters worse is that these people are here all the time.

I would solve this problem by implementing a process in which posts can be voted down by regular members (members with a certain level of points or who have been on for more than 6 mos). If 20 members vote to delete another members post, the post is deleted, and this user gets a "demerit." Too many demerits and the user is banned because obviously the community doesn't want to hear what this person has to say.




posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Listen..........or in the case of AboveTopSecret.........Read.



I have been in a lot of conversations that have ended prematurely because people are in a rush to state their opinion. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. I'm saying that in the sometimes debate style of the discussions that take place, we should take the effort and try to understand the perspective behind the words.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Perhaps it is my Sicilian heritage, but to me, it is all about respect. I stopped visiting ATS on a regular basis because I feel that there are a core of people here--regular members and mods included--with a complete lack of respect for people with different views.

And it is not a matter of these people posting a legitimate and well-phrased opposing view. These people have no qualms about dumping all over a thread to the point that it can no longer continue. Sometimes you can ignore them, but other times, the conversation gets diverted and it is impossible to wade through all the trolling.

What makes it seem systemic is that these people are long-term posters and moderators. I have become fed up with posting a controversial question or well-researched response, only to have it become a footnote to shouting and name-calling.


Your absolutely right, mostly it's those who are mods or power posters. My views are different then mosts and I don't post as much because Im tired of putting up with those who continue attack my views.



I would solve this problem by implementing a process in which posts can be voted down by regular members (members with a certain level of points or who have been on for more than 6 mos). If 20 members vote to delete another members post, the post is deleted, and this user gets a "demerit." Too many demerits and the user is banned because obviously the community doesn't want to hear what this person has to say.


I think this is a bad idea. Don't let the majority rule or those who post most will take control. The problem is that those who continually post always have to post their opinion. The ones with the full bar (posts) and a ton of points are the leaders in this forum besides staff. What we need is to have another group. A group that has knowledge of conspiracies, not just in a few areas but all or many areas. If a rank was given to all or most members which reflects their knowledge of conspiracies there may be a little more respect given to those with a higher ranking. This could be done with a multiple choice test on conspiracies. The conspiracy ranking system could be optional but it would be nice to see all members and staff with a rank. The test would have to be well thought out and prepared by a group of people.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Skeptic...

Honuestly your one of the few members on here I fully respect...not the same respect you would give a normal human but a respect you reserve for those who you truly look up to....you rarely speak but when you do its meaning full...

I myself am guilty of the political arguements...but dont give up!
While ATS has mods like we have and members like we have....though a few have graced us with thier prescence, we have removed those who do not obey the rules and those who try to hurt or currupt ATS.

Stay strong skeptic....

OOHHRAHH!

Devilwasp, out......
Lox stands behind ATS BTW....



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Here is the biggest. It has become impossible to discuss important issues without the distraction of polarized political banter. This is the biggest, most effective, and most brilliantly conceived conspiracy of the past 100 years. Divide the populace into two camps such that all issues become obscured in one against the other. Brilliant.


Thank you SO
I wish I could applaud.

The two party system will be the death of Freedom in America.

To many are conned into believing their vote is "wasted" if given to someone other than the two hand-picked figure-heads to lead the next round of the song and dance.

We must vote AGAINST the two parties. Vote Libertarian, Constituionalist, Green, hell vote Socialist ANYTHING but Republican or Democrat because a vote for EITHER is a vote for NO CHANGE.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Here is the biggest. It has become impossible to discuss important issues without the distraction of polarized political banter. This is the biggest, most effective, and most brilliantly conceived conspiracy of the past 100 years. Divide the populace into two camps such that all issues become obscured in one against the other. Brilliant.


Thank you SO
I wish I could applaud.

The two party system will be the death of Freedom in America.

To many are conned into believing their vote is "wasted" if given to someone other than the two hand-picked figure-heads to lead the next round of the song and dance.

We must vote AGAINST the two parties. Vote Libertarian, Constituionalist, Green, hell vote Socialist ANYTHING but Republican or Democrat because a vote for EITHER is a vote for NO CHANGE.


Sorry guys, I'm kind of new here and I understand. I've posted some pretty hasty things myself just to argue. Not that I've been around long, but there appears to be the same division that is in our country right now. Left vs right, non-religious vs religious.

Oh yeah, and vote Libertarian, this Amuk guy is right.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by steggyD]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I am guilty of unwittingly contributing to this atmosphere of polarization and will strive to avoid such nonsense in the future. I first discovered ATS through a link from another webpage leading to the cryptozoology forum. I am a chronic lurker on the web and an introvert in real life the fact that I make posts at all here is a testament to the respect I have for this forum.

I suggest we try not to let our emotions get in the way of the pursuit of knowledge and avoid feeding the trolls and making blanket statements regarding our perceived political enemies. We are guilty of forgetting that our fellow board members are fellow humans and not monsters sent buy the dark forces of ______ (insert personal political pet peeve here). If we can remember that the people on the other side of the screen are real people with valid opinions and feelings then maybe we can avoid the political insults that are degrading this board. We dont allow swearing here why should we allow petty political insults (remember an insult doesnt have to be personal to be insulting).



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
well i do have to say i lost a lot of respect for you skeptic overloard when you cried over the spilt milk of the bush win in the RATS forum and created that long post about bush's win being the result of something along the lines of "the greatest conspiracry in the modern age" or something like that. very childish. ever since that ridiculous post by skeptic i have pretty much stopped visiting this site. that reminds me., time to remove abovetopsecret from being my home page.

[edit on 3/19/05 by spangbr]

[edit on 3/19/05 by spangbr]



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlordMake no mistake, you are being expertly controlled. Even here, in this venue that should be beyond the puppet masters' strings, we have succumbed to the subtle manipulations of thought and reason. Instead of looking in agner toward the puppet masters, you yell at the puppets.



Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
That right there says it all (to me). There is no doubt in my mind that we have RNC paid propagandist flooding ATS with BS. I don't see how anyone can be so loyal to an individual with whom they do not really know other than what they see on TV. That strikes me as strange and abnormal. But I'm not bias, the DNC does the same thing. And hell, it's hard to see who is who anymore.



Well I have been accused of this very thing and I can assure you I am paid nothing, matter of fact it cost me! But nonetheless, most in here would think of me as a die hard Republican, but I am not. Oh don't get me wrong, I am right wing and proudly so, but Republicans have lost their vision. The Democrats want you to think they are for the small guy, but alas they are just like the Republicans, they all want bigger Government.

I do not.


Now as for SO remarks, in a way he is right, but also I think the big picture is in order. The new ATS is divided in the sense that those that like to argue politics can do so, I like the new setup mind you! But at the same time I also can talk religion, science, space, warfare you name it, this place has it. I wouldn't change a thing at the moment......let it 'evolve'......



Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
I suggest some people should take a hard look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves why they are thinking the way they are. They should ask themselves, "Are my thoughts my own?"



Well my feelings about how I feel the way I do come from the 35+ years of life, I am not the smartest guy on the block but yet I am not stupid either. The way I feel about it is we live in a crappy world, we need to do what we can to make it better, some people have their theories about how to get it done and this would include me.


[edit on 19-3-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I still don't understand what the problem is.
Ever since I read that first post by Sceptic, I was unsure what exactly he ment, and why he was making such a big drama out of it.
Let me ask a few very simple questions, that I hope someone can answer.

1. Is the problem of increased hostility, bickering and a harsher attitude against others on ATS a problem that is (partly) caused by "organised professionals" from outside according to sceptic?

2. Why is this called a conspiracy, when it only and utterly has to do with the attitude and discussion methods of the normal average ATSer and has nothing to do with outside interference, whatsoever.

3. What is wrong about taking sides and argueing? Isn't that what ATS was all about in the first place.?

4. Wouldn't this problem be solved if people would just try to be more respectfull towards others, and if people weren't so afraid to admit defeat when they are proven wrong?

5. Polarisation was predictable, looking at how fast ATS grows, and what we see around us in this world. Why the drama? Why so surprised?

[edit on 19-3-2005 by Jakko]



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
I still don't understand what the problem is.
Ever since I read that first post by Sceptic, I was unsure what exactly he ment, and why he was making such a big drama out of it.
I suspect the problem is two-fold: capitalism and corporate governance.

Rapid growth with the onset of outside investor relations thereof, will always challenge a business plan and therefore a corporation's mission statement's congruence to the product and quality of same, where the product either has to be retro-fitted to garner a broader range of consumer, in the hopes of pleasing the investors, which then requires the board of directors address the possible amendment of the business plan and mission statement.

Hand in hand with that is the corporate governance, in this case the employee handbook section on conduct, where the employees tend to take their cues from the executive, if some of the executive are lax in adhering to the mission statement on quality product, it will filter down to the employees, where production might go up, but quality goes down.

The board of directors usually must decide which is more important then, capitalist growth; i.e: being the biggest in terms of sales, or sticking with its original business plan and mission statement accepting success in product reliablity, whilst ensuring the employees see the executive as fully supportive of same.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
1. Is the problem of increased hostility, bickering and a harsher attitude against others on ATS a problem that is (partly) caused by "organised professionals" from outside according to sceptic?


No. The problem is in the political beliefs in tandem with the immediate relagation of any questioning of any given issue as , in the case of current events, 'Bush-Bashing'. The problem, of course, includes the flip side, such as post flavorings that assume Bush/government to be wrong. The point really is alot broader than Bush, as polarization does include religious and entertainment preferences.......


Originally posted by Jakko
2. Why is this called a conspiracy, when it only and utterly has to do with the attitude and discussion methods of the normal average ATSer and has nothing to do with outside interference, whatsoever.


The consideration is that polarization is a conspiracy, one that I give credence to. I wouldn't say that it has nothing to do with outside influence........it has been noted on numerous occasions the amount of bias in the news media. Since these medias are owned by what can be traced to a handful of companies, then the influence resides in the particular spin given information disseminations..........the outside influence is very subtle and usually only complimentary as the argumentative nature of our society is inherent in our religious backgrounds...........Of the things you do not discuss in polite company is religion and politics.......why?.........because of the arguements and subsequent bad feelings that arise........in the wonderful world of psyops, wouldn't you say that it was just a matter of time before information transpired with hints of both? Many, if not all, of America's social issues are discussed in political forums because of the impact it may or may not have on our future laws......this allows for political spin to be given on virtually every topic. Also, I have noticed the religious inclinations of the two major parties, correct me if I'm wrong, but the right republicans are usually god fearing, while the higher percentage of athiests and agnosticsm is in the liberal democrats......interesting to note in the ongoing polarization is the emergence of subsets...such as the neo-cons and radical liberals(different incarnation than the 60's). Remember, the term neo-con was popularized by the media.....and is now widely regarded as its own entity or label.......yet it is pretty much a fallacy...imo.

So the outside influence has to deal with the popular culture and medias. These are how the brunt of our information is being transmitted, with the internet becoming more of a force, but the internet is still influenced by the already established. The conspiracy has to do with the basic premises that many americans hold......their very ideologies that, conveniently enough, have opposite holders who will argue ad nauseum the validity of their affiliation(s) without an attempt at objectivity.


Originally posted by Jakko
3. What is wrong about taking sides and argueing? Isn't that what ATS was all about in the first place.?


Nothing is wrong with arguing. But their is an increasing trend here on ATS for posters to argue the validity of a statement with a topic/subject/concept that is only indirectly associated with the topic at hand. This allows for the original issue to get lost in the political maelstrom........and that is what ATS is supposed to be against. To Deny Ignorance would be to accept explanations that differ from your own and discuss the validity or lack thereof based in logic and reasoning skills......ATS, I think, is here to provide an oppurtunity for subjects to be discussed with a twist that would be unacceptable in the mainstream media. For me, it has been, pretty much the coolest thing........because I get to express my thoughts on conspiracies that in real life conversation get laughed away or dismissed without consideration. ATS is here to allow for constructive discussion......but the point of this thread is to bring to attention to the lack of constructive thought processes.......


Originally posted by Jakko
4. Wouldn't this problem be solved if people would just try to be more respectfull towards others, and if people weren't so afraid to admit defeat when they are proven wrong?


In part.......definetely would be a step in the right direction. But I think a big part of the solution would be for people to examine and question their basic beliefs........to find out why they think the way they do. After that, a focus on listening and interpreting the data they recieve.

Nobody has all the answers. But this forum rocks because it brings together many people with many backgrounds. And together, we may have alot of the answers we are looking for.


Originally posted by Jakko
5. Polarisation was predictable, looking at how fast ATS grows, and what we see around us in this world. Why the drama? Why so surprised?


The attention has been brought to the issue for purposes consistent with the motto Deny Ignorance. To encourage a bit of reflection and a more open mindedness.......to bring the community together........to maybe help prevent future conversations from being lost in unecassary conflicts of interest........to remind us that we are all in this together.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
This is the #ing problem, this is what causes all this nonsense

www.abovetopsecret.com...

look at the first reply



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
You're right, worldwatcher. That was a very idiotic post, and exactly what we don't want here.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock





Originally posted by Jakko
3. What is wrong about taking sides and arguing? Isn't that what ATS was all about in the first place.?


Nothing is wrong with arguing. But their is an increasing trend here on ATS for posters to argue the validity of a statement with a topic/subject/concept that is only indirectly associated with the topic at hand. This allows for the original issue to get lost in the political maelstrom........and that is what ATS is supposed to be against. To Deny Ignorance would be to accept explanations that differ from your own and discuss the validity or lack thereof based in logic and reasoning skills......ATS, I think, is here to provide an opportunity for subjects to be discussed with a twist that would be unacceptable in the mainstream media. For me, it has been, pretty much the coolest thing........because I get to express my thoughts on conspiracies that in real life conversation get laughed away or dismissed without consideration. ATS is here to allow for constructive discussion......but the point of this thread is to bring to attention to the lack of constructive thought processes.......


The attention has been brought to the issue for purposes consistent with the motto Deny Ignorance. To encourage a bit of reflection and a more open mindedness.......to bring the community together........to maybe help prevent future conversations from being lost in unnecessary conflicts of interest........to remind us that we are all in this together.


Ok...say that you have put your finger on the problem of many arguments.

You seem to be saying that if I would look at a site quoted as a resource and found the validity of a statement in question, I am not to question the validity because it is against all ats rules and regulations? Why is it there if it doesn't make any difference to the argument? And if I have found it in error how could I possible believe the rest of the argument without testing each source?

You appear to be saying that the alternative sources are OK to be quoted. What falls into these "OK'd" alternative sources? Blogs, or someone's opinion written elsewhere, ? Are you saying that there doesn't have to be one iota of truth, only opinion.

I can even see alternative news sources. But doesn't the reader have the right to point out that the one making the post has "quoted" the site incorrectly? Or if it is someone's opinion, why can't I quote an opposite opinion? Or if the alternative news source is quoted would not one be able to site an official news source as the other side?

Another thing...sometimes people quote threads that have gone before in these boards, probably unaware that they were debunked in the end. Is it not OK to point out this error?

I am having trouble with the concept that I am to accept unconditionally what a poster has to say. The only statements that may be added must agree with the original premise.

If these are what the rules are I can live with them, please excuse my not understanding the rules and regulations.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
A lot of people that come here come here thinking that they are going to give people answers. Not enough people try to learn from others or try to think differently.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree

I am having trouble with the concept that I am to accept unconditionally what a poster has to say. The only statements that may be added must agree with the original premise.


You misunderstand me.........and that is my fault.

I was trying to say, for example, that a discussion on the proficiency of our military in its current engagement with Iraq does not have to include a sidebar discussion on the motivation for said war.

Granted sidebars are going to happen, because of the inclusive nature of sources and cumulative evidence, however an abrupt declaration of negation concerning a topic without a logical process is antithema to the point of ATS.......and that is what I'm referring to.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by Mahree

I am having trouble with the concept that I am to accept unconditionally what a poster has to say. The only statements that may be added must agree with the original premise.


You misunderstand me.........and that is my fault.

I was trying to say, for example, that a discussion on the proficiency of our military in its current engagement with Iraq does not have to include a sidebar discussion on the motivation for said war.

Granted sidebars are going to happen, because of the inclusive nature of sources and cumulative evidence, however an abrupt declaration of negation concerning a topic without a logical process is antithema to the point of ATS.......and that is what I'm referring to.


I can understand your example as listed. But, I picked up on the way you had said it because it has happened to me. I don't believe an argument can be logical if you include incorrect statements to uphold your theory.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
I don't believe an argument can be logical if you include incorrect statements to uphold your theory.


I agree.......but pointing out an inaccurate statement is part of a logical process.

That is a distinction that should be made. After all, an attempt at illucidating upon the negative aspects of conversation should not promote an inclination to allow blatantly false and poorly constructed threads to stand.........

Good point Mahree...



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by Mahree
I don't believe an argument can be logical if you include incorrect statements to uphold your theory.


I agree.......but pointing out an inaccurate statement is part of a logical process.

That is a distinction that should be made. After all, an attempt at illucidating upon the negative aspects of conversation should not promote an inclination to allow blatantly false and poorly constructed threads to stand.........

Good point Mahree...


Thank you MemoryShock,
I do not always express my ideas in a coherent manner. But, because you were patient, you did understand the point I was trying to make. Some times this point does not appear to be accepted here.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join