Ok, well in that case Soficrow, then maybe the mods and admins should go through every single story on ATSNN and delete every single one that does not offer a conspiracy angle on the subject reported. Maybe we'll be left with a few stories to read, many of them yours. Oh, could this be another conspiracy from within?

If conspiracy is going to be a requirement for ATSNN stories, then a look at the available ATSNN catagories might be in order. And your insulting statement that ATSNN is being used as a propaganda tool to promote the mainstream media inflamed me so much I did 3 podcasts about it. They weren't pretty, and I'm just not crazy about being banned.

TA - I don't get your beef. What happened to America that just asking a question is inflammatory - and triggers vitriol? Never mind offering a different perspective?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
...maybe the mods and admins should go through every single story on ATSNN and delete every single one that does not offer a conspiracy angle on the subject reported.

Not what I recommended - nor did I imply that I think such action is in order.

And your insulting statement that ATSNN is being used as a propaganda tool to promote the mainstream media inflamed me so much I did 3 podcasts about it. They weren't pretty, and I'm just not crazy about being banned.

It was a question, not a statement - and a call for reflection, awareness. A call for conscious awareness. Kind of a meditational checkpoint. Why would that inflame you?

I will check out your podcasts...

But as I wrote earlier - this is a conspiracy site. Conspiracy is what makes ATS special. It's what we do here.

Why delete our best bytes from the mix?


.sp. ed

[edit on 9-10-2005 by soficrow]

Originally posted by soficrow
TA - I don't get your beef. What happened to America that just asking a question is inflammatory - and triggers vitriol? Never mind offering a different perspective?

Sofi, unless I am totally misreading this, who, as in which member, do you feel is using ATSNN to promote <<---what you said, not me- the mainstream media? The mainstream media often end up being used as sources, sure. But I don't see that as actively promoting them. There is a difference, and your insinuation to that effect by your original comment is what set me off. So according to you, there is a conspiracy here at ATSNN to promote the mainstream media instead of finding conspiracy angles to the stories? If I wanted to promote CNN, I suppose I'd go get a job downtown at their headquarters here in the advertising or PR department.

And as to ATSNN being used to push a political partisan agenda, well to me if there is such an agenda going on with a story, it results more often from the sides people choose on the issue presented, and their resulting comments on the issue presented, more so than from the presentation of the issue itself. And I am talking intros here, not commentary sections. Opinion is what the commentary section is used for. Intros are for facts, and as clever as some people can be around here injecting opinion into intros or headlines, I think the majority see through it and vote fix intro, fix headline, or no bias.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
...maybe the mods and admins should go through every single story on ATSNN and delete every single one that does not offer a conspiracy angle on the subject reported.

Originally posted by soficrow
Not what I recommended - nor did I imply that I think such action is in order.

I am only suggesting that as an attempt to satisfy your apparent overly obsessive need to find a conspiracy angle on every ATSNN story. I thought we had ATS for conspiracies. As a member-driven news portal, ATSNN is doing fine as it is IMO, even if all the stories don't have a conspiracy angle.

And frankly, as I commented to Netchicken in a u2u, I really think that ALL stories ought to be voted up as opposed to having some that can just publish them at will. If not, and in keeping with the apparent focus on conspiracy angles recently, then maybe it is expected of the "experts" that they WILL or SHOULD find conspiracy angles to every story they so easily publish. The effort was noble on the administration's part, granted, to take into account those with much experience, but it still does not reflect in total the average member's input on whether they want to see that story up there or not- and for all the reasons provided for in the voting box.

I commented to him also that the expert designation might be left to show the experience, but that still their stories should go through the voting process as well. No biggie, just my view on it to make ATSNN a truely member-driven news portal.

Now if you, or the administration want to call ATSNN a conspiracy-driven member news portal only, I think that's a different matter, and hence again my suggestion that many stories should be deleted.

And your insulting statement that ATSNN is being used as a propaganda tool to promote the mainstream media inflamed me so much I did 3 podcasts about it. They weren't pretty, and I'm just not crazy about being banned.

It was a question, not a statement - and a call for reflection, awareness. A call for conscious awareness. Kind of a meditational checkpoint. Why would that inflame you?

I will check out your podcasts...

Well it inflamed me for the reasons already stated above. As to the podcasts, forget it, I won't publish those. But I do think we need some direction from the administration as to what ATSNN is supposed to be. That in itself, IMO, may be a root grey area that needs to be addressed, and may be at the core of any disagreements here.

But as I wrote earlier - this is a conspiracy site. Conspiracy is what makes ATS special. It's what we do here.

And I couldn't agree more. For ATS. Not ATSNN.

Why delete our best bytes from the mix?

Sofi, what in the heck? From the mix? Arggg, would you make up your mind, please? What is it that you want ATSNN to be? A mixture of all the subjects currently offered in the ATSNN categories including general, business and Sci/tech news--- or a conspiracy-driven member news portal only? You're drivin me nuts!

[edit on 9-10-2005 by TrueAmerican]

TA - I'm not targeting any particular member, or making accusations. My issue here is with what's called "editorial policy." It's an old pet peeve of mine - and it's about policy, not people. Basically, I don't think we can or should try to compete with Google, Fox, or any other 'straight' news portal. Never have. I think our collective strength is background info (context and framework), analysis, and understanding "conspiracy."

Much of what happens in the world is driven by unseen forces - and we here at ATS excel at identifying those forces. I see this as a strength, not a weakness. When I say we should "play to our strengths," this is what I mean.

When I ask, "Are we a propaganda tool?" I mean that most news sites reprint press releases almost verbatim - and I'm saying that we are better than anyone out there at dissecting the 'campaign,' and figuring out what's really going on - behind the press release.

...Really, I'm talking about larger things like direction, and policy - not about individual people at all. My question might be in the wrong place, at the wrong time - but at the core, I think it's an important question, worthy of discussion. At some point, if not now.


.

OK.

Now that we have gotten to the core issue and essence of your first post with our latest responses here, in which we are both pretty much pointing to the same thing of direction and editorial policy, all we can do is wait and see if there is any additional input that will help further both our understandings of what ATSNN exactly should be, or should I say...IS.

*me rests*

[edit on 9-10-2005 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
OK.

...all we can do is wait and see if there is any additional input that will help further both our understandings of what ATSNN exactly should be, or should I say...IS.

*me rests*

You rest?!? Now that we finally sorted through the garbage so we can talk productively, YOU'RE GONNA QUIT?! ...You're Kidding, right?



Oh well. I gotta bake a pie, make brownies, and get the turkey ready to roast for tomorrow. Not like I really have the time to futz around here.

Thank you for making the effort to find out what I really meant. Makes a difference.

BTW - I really like your meditation podcast thread (and your music too).


.

Admittedly, I have no dog in this fight. I have never posted an ATSNN article- nor have I voted for or against one. Frankly, by the time I see an article on ATSNN, I have already most likely read its parent article in a number of places. This is not a criticism, just an observation...

On the matter of voting, I'd be curious to know how often the "No bias" button is actually used. It seems odd to me that it should have equal weight to the other 'no' options, when after all, the supporting paragraphs require your comments, opinions and/or analysis. The process, therefore, expects bias to be included to some degree with a submission, but nonetheless renders a contribution potentially vulnerable to the less-than-objective motivations of some voters.

While I certainly understand that the "no bias" option was intended to be used for the introduction paragraph only, I remain somewhat convinced it is successfully deployed (and often) for reasons outside this very narrow purpose. It is for this reason that I have little interest in posting there in the first place. I'm just not into the drama and find it easier to post my dribble in ATS proper.

I have no doubt conspiracies do exist, but one cannot simply lurk in every corner. In the end, ATSNN will be judged by the sum total of its submissions. I rather like the alligator-eating-boa-stories, but I also like the option to consider the validity of the nuns-plotting-to-rule-the-universe stories as well. What would be the harm of those if well written and properly sourced?





[edit on 9-10-2005 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
Admittedly, I have no dog in this fight.

Jeez loam. We're not fighting. We're discussing, and anyway, we made up and resolved our misunderstandings.

Thanks for your comments. Thoughtful and balanced as usual. But - can you expand the notion of 'conspiracy' to encompass 'deconstruction of the media,' and maybe consider where that kind of approach might lead?


.

Originally posted by soficrowYou rest?!? Now that we finally sorted through the garbage so we can talk productively, YOU'RE GONNA QUIT?! ...You're Kidding, right?

Sofi, my interest was as far as making sure that I understood your point of view clearly, because honestly, I really care about your concerns for ATSNN- it doesn't take a genius to see that you are a heavyweight here and have contributed excellent material to the site. And no, I'm not calling you fat with the word heavyweight. Don't EVEN try it, lol.

But seriously, I rest because it is really an administrative issue at this point. I think with the decision to open ATSNN up to member voting, as opposed to, say, redirecting the existing (at that time) reporting staff to reinforce the conspiracy angle in ATSNN stories (if that's what they wanted), they knew exactly what they were doing, considered the ramifications, and went with the voting system. And note that with your expert status Sofi that you are still able to keep that conspiracy angle you so desire in your stories on ATSNN, with no member say on that.

But keep in mind, with that very decision to open it up to member voting, they are saying "let the members decide what they want to see up there." And so you see the results, now some months later. There's no question in my mind Sofi that they achieved their objective. But with that they also achieved another site unto itself with ATSNN- a reflection of the news stories that members would like to see, both from an author standpoint and from the member standpoint. Until, that is, you reach 75 approved submittals, at which point you are right back to the freedom to publish whatever you want, and not subject to member scrutiny.

If conspiracy should be, or would be a criteria for publishing an ATSNN story, then why not simply have a "Your Conspiracy Angle Summary Box" on the submission form that is required to be filled out, and making some real sense supported by facts in the story. Oh, and let's put it on the OP/ED form too. I mean after all, if an OP/ED piece is not conspiratorial, then it has no business being on the site? Right?

Thank you for making the effort to find out what I really meant. Makes a difference.

Well needless to say, you are quite welcome and I would hope you'd reciprocate that. In other words, if you need to further understand what I am trying to say, don't hesitate to ask. Hopefully I will try to state core issues from the get-go, so as to help minimize that problem.

BTW - I really like your meditation podcast thread (and your music too).

You do? Oh. lol. ok. (blushes) Then why didn't ya say so? *smack* No really, thanks.

TA

.

I don't particularly understand what it is you're griping about, soficrow?

Is it...

that everything isn't about to fall of the cliff with it's bias commentary in the opening paragraph? You give one example in the first page of this thread that is clearly an op/ed, yet you argue against that categorization. Would you choose this site to become rense.com? If so, can't you just trot over there and be happier?

or is it that you believe members don't have the grey matter to vote up or vote down decent articles?

or is it that there are too many articles that don't agree with your obsessions?

I've read this whole thread and still can't get which of the above is bothering you the most.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Valhall]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I think with the decision to open ATSNN up to member voting, as opposed to, say, redirecting the existing (at that time) reporting staff to reinforce the conspiracy angle in ATSNN stories (if that's what they wanted), they knew exactly what they were doing, considered the ramifications, and went with the voting system. ....

But keep in mind, with that very decision to open it up to member voting, they are saying "let the members decide what they want to see up there." And so you see the results, now some months later.

True. I did and still do totally support that move. And the anarchy that comes with it.

BUT - part of the 'democratic process' is discussion. People talking - raising issues - floating ideas. Things constantly evolve and change - it's how they stay alive (as opposed to entropy and stasis).

So IMO - talking about what we're doing is part of the whole thing. Fundamental to democracy - and the success of democracy.

As a side issue - I also support a kind of 'conscious evolution,' as well as an 'evolution of consciousness.' Also part of the process, and not possible without reflection and discussion.

BTW - I really like your meditation podcast thread (and your music too).

You do? Oh. lol. ok. (blushes) Then why didn't ya say so? *smack* No really, thanks.

I don't post even 0.03% of what I want to do. And so many times I listen to or read something, think "Okay" I'll respond to that after I have a chance to think about it - then lose the friggin thread, or get distracted, or run out of time. But there is SO much here that I just love - and I learn a lot too. Just wish I had a button to push and send points for everything that makes me sit up and take notice. But I do notice, and appreciate, waaayyy more than I comment on...

Originally posted by Valhall
I don't particularly understand what it is you're griping about, soficrow?

I'm not griping. Just trying to initate a civil, reflective discussion. Ie., see above.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by soficrow]

I did see above. I saw all above. I still don't understand the motivation behind the civil discussion initiative, unless it's based solely on that things aren't going the way you want them to.

I'm giving you the opportunity to correct this perception.

Originally posted by Valhall
I did see above. I saw all above. I still don't understand the motivation behind the civil discussion initiative, unless it's based solely on that things aren't going the way you want them to.

I'm giving you the opportunity to correct this perception.

I did and still do totally support the 'democratizing' of ATSNN. And the anarchy that comes with it.

BUT - part of the 'democratic process' is discussion. People talking - raising issues - floating ideas. Things constantly evolve and change - it's how they stay alive (as opposed to entropy and stasis).

So IMO - talking about what we're doing is part of the whole thing. Fundamental to democracy - and the success of democracy.

As a side issue - I also support a kind of 'conscious evolution,' as well as an 'evolution of consciousness.' Also part of the process, and not possible without reflection and discussion.


...I happen to think that ATSNN is the best place to 'deconstruct the media' - and expose hidden agendas and media manipulations, if not outright conspiracies. (You for one already do an excellent job of that very thing.) But mostly - I just like talkijng about things sometimes. Floating ideas, seeing what comes back, and where others are at. That's what I'm doing - and I'm being totally out front about it, and about what I think.

I don't expect others to have the same concerns or priorities I do - but part of being involved in a community and democracy is sharing. I'm sharing. As far as things going 'the way I want them to' - well, it's not a big personal issue. I don't have time to post even a fraction of what I want to do, and need several months just to catch up on the posts - even if I skip right over the stuff that doesn't interest me.



.

I think the point that soficrow is trying to relay is that ATS is a conspiracy-related site and that perhaps because ATSNN is a direct brainchild of ATS, that instead of ATSNN simply being or becoming another place to simply post up mainstream and non-mainstream news, that it be posted up and slanted [for the lack of a better word] to an ATS conspiracy perspective, etc.

Basically, that ATSNN is simply becoming another vehicle for placing or seeding mainstream news, without the ATS unique perspective or slant added or emphasized, etc. Understandably, this perspective or slant is given in replys made to the news topic as posted.

My reason for thinking that this is what soficrow may be hinting or getting at is this mention from her initial post:

I've got news sites bookmarked. I don't need ATSNN for news. I need ATSNN to focus my attention, highlight news that the mainstream doesn't hit. I need ATSNN to help me look at things in a different, NOT the mainstream way.

If I am wrong in my interpretation, I offer my apologies in advance, soficrow.





seekerof

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Seekerof]

originally posted by soficrow
So, FredT: What on earth do you think my agenda is? And where's the hypocrisy?

PLEASE tell me you were being a "smarty pants" here. I couldn't take the insult to my and worse yet, our Member's intelligence.

ALSO... there is NO "editorial policy" at ATSNN, it's MEMBER DRIVEN... So, your whole argument here turns right back where you reallystarted it, with your fellow members...

Springer...


[edit on 10-10-2005 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer

PLEASE tell me you were being a "smarty pants" here. I couldn't take the insult to my and worse yet, our Member's intelligence.

I assure you - I have no desire to insult anyone in any way, nor do I think I am being hypocritical.

ALSO... there is NO "editorial policy" at ATSNN, it's MEMBER DRIVEN... So, your whole argument here turns right back where you reallystarted it, with your fellow members...

You misunderstand me. I am not making an argument - but rather, initiating discussion with my fellow members.

Part of the 'democratic process' is discussion. People talking - raising issues - floating ideas. Things constantly evolve and change - it's how they stay alive (as opposed to entropy and stasis).

So IMO - talking about what we're doing is part of the whole thing. Fundamental to democracy - and the success of democracy.

As a side issue - I also support a kind of 'conscious evolution,' as well as an 'evolution of consciousness' - also part of the process, and not possible without reflection and - open, free - discussion.


.