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.

 

Important Update to the Terms & Conditions coming soon...

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Hehehe Valhall, as First Lady of ATS your looked at and held up to the same standards as Barbara Bush is.

Your supposed to be PC and a perfect lady at all times ya know


Thats the life you get when being married to one of the presidents of ATS I guess.




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Student
I feel that banning an entire "group" for the actions of a few would be detrimental to the entire community.


I think this is a pretty accurate statement. What's next, all Republicans? All Pro-Choice advocates? All Homosexuals? All Teachers (they have a National Education Association you know)?

Also, what does this mean?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
xpert, it is considerably different than discussing religions. The first and foremost is that religions don't come equipped with sinister undertones, as "secret societies" do.


I can think of at least one religion with a sinister undertone, but don't see them banned. Does a society that's secret have to be sinister? What sinister offense has Masonry committed? I really do not know, I'm on the outside looking in on both Masonry and this action.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
Hehehe Valhall, as First Lady of ATS your looked at and held up to the same standards as Barbara Bush is.

Your supposed to be PC and a perfect lady at all times ya know


Thats the life you get when being married to one of the presidents of ATS I guess.


Well, I keep hearing that. But first I'm not the first lady of ATS, and then anyone who holds me to some higher standard is being warranteed right now (with a money back garantee) to be let down.

I didn't even know the reported pack-attack business was going on in the SS forum, because I don't go over there. But thanks to that first honyock in this thread (and now some one else trying to flip it to there's no reason to bring up the unbecoming nastiness of said former member) it kind of got proven what behavior has been taking place. You simply don't attack another member in such a crappy way as he did Mayet. That's BS and if this policy change had to take place in order to shut that down, it sounds like a reasonable move to me.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Masonic Student
I feel that banning an entire "group" for the actions of a few would be detrimental to the entire community.


I think this is a pretty accurate statement. What's next, all Republicans? All Pro-Choice advocates? All Homosexuals? All Teachers (they have a National Education Association you know)?

Also, what does this mean?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
xpert, it is considerably different than discussing religions. The first and foremost is that religions don't come equipped with sinister undertones, as "secret societies" do.


[edit on 5-12-2005 by saint4God]


I said this at least 2 times in this thread already, so did SkepticOverlord and Thomas, NOONE is saying they'll ban ALL MASONS or ALL whatever.

This rule is about banning certain small groups of people that always work in unison that in the case of threads like "Masonry is a religion" and many other threads, happen to be of the Masonic flavor. These could be compared to extremist splintergroups in the world religions like certain christian groups in the US and certain Muslim groups all over the world.

These groups do not represent the religion as a whole but represent their own lil extremist club with their own ways of pushing their agenda and own twisted view of their religion, ideology or whatever.

I also said that there are quite a few people I know to be masons on ATS that do not condone or participate in this behaviour and one of them is even a very much respected moderator on ATS.

This new rule applies to members of these lil gangs of attack dogs that say they represent masonry.

This new rule does not apply to masonry or any other fraternity or ideology as a whole.

So when a pack of these rabbid dogs attacks a thread, the members of this pack are identified and banned. If they represent masonry, not all masons will be banned, but just this small group that claim to represent masonry.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
I said this at least 2 times in this thread already, so did SkepticOverlord and Thomas, NOONE is saying they'll ban ALL MASONS or ALL whatever.


Thanks for clarifying, that's not how the U2U read to me so I appreciate it put plainly. It looked like some others shared the same concern.


Originally posted by thematrix
This rule is about banning certain small groups of people that always work in unison


What does this mean? Again, this is the part that's unclear. If two people share the same ideology, are they "working in unison"?


Originally posted by thematrix
These could be compared to extremist splintergroups in the world religions like certain christian groups in the US and certain Muslim groups all over the world.


ATS is a magnet for extremism, encouraging debate (and to some degree, fight) and now they want everyone to be in the middle? I'm not sure I follow the reasoning.


Originally posted by thematrix
These groups do not represent the religion as a whole but represent their own lil extremist club with their own ways of pushing their agenda and own twisted view of their religion, ideology or whatever.


Ah. So now we can judge people's religion as twisted and extremist? Where do you draw these lines?


Originally posted by thematrix
I also said that there are quite a few people I know to be masons on ATS that do not condone or participate in this behaviour and one of them is even a very much respected moderator on ATS.


Thanks again. This clarity helps.


Originally posted by thematrix
This new rule applies to members of these lil gangs of attack dogs that say they represent masonry.


If they were attacking an individually personally, I now understand.


Originally posted by thematrix
This new rule does not apply to masonry or any other fraternity or ideology as a whole.


Pardon for being dense, but appreciate the clarification.


Originally posted by thematrix
So when a pack of these rabbid dogs attacks a thread, the members of this pack are identified and banned. If they represent masonry, not all masons will be banned, but just this small group that claim to represent masonry.


I see, thanks for your time and patience. I'm working to comprehend the scope of what's happening.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
You simply don't attack another member in such a crappy way...


But attacking this way is much better:


Originally posted by Valhall
nor do I care what you guys do while you're wearing your cute little aprons.

That may be under-estimating you, but it's based on the fact that the few professed masons I've met in life looked like they just got through divorcing their sisters.

...I have to say that if you intended some kind of "representation" for your apparently beloved order, you just flunked with honors!

Way to represent.

the fact that the only Masons I've met in real life looked and acted like products of in-breeding, I can't do anything about that fact.


Yes?

[edit on 5-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
If your asking how they can identify members of groups like this.

I know of 1 of these groups of which there are at least 2 already banned. I mentioned them earlyer too.

They have been active in literaly 100's of threads on ATS, plainly attacking either the thread authors or the sources of their information by ridiculing them, making fun of their language skills, making the thread, clearly deliberaty, going around in circles and so on.

They don't defend masonry in the topic by discussing the topic, they do it by, as said very colorfull by someone else in this thread, "gangraping" the thread author or his sources, dragging topics out to 50 pages with this kind of behaviour, with ultimatly none of the original information being discussed and leaving it utterly deluted so that noone who sets eyes on this thread will have any interest in continuing to read it after 5 or 6 posts.

[edit on 5/12/05 by thematrix]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God


But attacking this way is much better:


Originally posted by Valhall
nor do I care what you guys do while you're wearing your cute little aprons.

That may be under-estimating you, but it's based on the fact that the few professed masons I've met in life looked like they just got through divorcing their sisters.

...I have to say that if you intended some kind of "representation" for your apparently beloved order, you just flunked with honors!

Way to represent.

the fact that the only Masons I've met in real life looked and acted like products of in-breeding, I can't do anything about that fact.


Yes?



yes - lesson completed.

carry on!



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
To the layperson who got the U2U, it was confusing what was going on and why. I appreciate your patience and clarity and no longer fear being labeled and banned because of ideology or freely expressing thoughts.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nukunuku
i will surely miss their ability to drag the discussion in circles for 25 pages...


Yeah, those Bohemian Grove threads just won't be the same without senrak.


This is how I view some of our masonic members:



Peace



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
One of the most fascinating things to me about this board is how it reflects as a microcosm of the world at large. So much drama and so much ado about the trivial.

I really enjoy participating here and certainly appreciate the opportunity to garner information about any number of subjects that interest me from like-minded individuals and also the views from those that I couldn’t disagree with more.

This is not a democracy. It’s a privately owned sandbox. Play nice or ... I’m amazed that so many people can take things personally when 1) It’s not only not “in person” but 2) the anonymous component means nobody knows who you are beyond the identity you choose to reveal. Don’t be such delicate little hothouse orchids. Sheesh. Some of you wouldn’t last 5 minutes in my environment.

As for the Masons, I’m always sorry to see anyone banned, especially those contributing information. I understand the logic, and whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant. I do believe chasing Masonry as the pinnacle of conspiratorial evil is misguided, and may even be playing into a classic sleight-of-hand misdirection ploy. Or maybe not. Remember for years ol’ J. Edgar Hoover denied the existence of “The Mafia”, which is why the FBI’s publicity machine focused on John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, Machine Gun Kelly, and other relatively small time crooks while the real criminal power brokers were left to operate with near impunity. Not equating Masons with criminal activity, just attempting to draw an analogy.

Basically, don’t be offended. And if you can’t help that, don’t offend. Please. Whether you choose to leave or are banned means we as a group no longer have the benefit of your participation. Which is sad. And if I offended anyone with the content of this post, it was not my intention, so please forgive me in advance.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I think this is a good move -- the secret societies forum had become such a cesspool that I just started ignoring it.

I'm sure the admin can discern between people of similar religious and/or political ideologies and a coordinated attack from an organized group, so I think some of the concerns raised here are unfounded.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Freemasonry in itself is actually a religion. My understanding is that the first few levels are basically testing grounds--see who's willing to go higher.

Did you know that the Jesuit General (Black Pope) is the top dog in Freemasonry? (That'd be a great discussion in the Conspiracies in Religions section I'd think.)

As far as sinister undertones...think about it this way. Evil loves darkness and hates when light gets shined on it, because then it's exposed. If it's such a benevolent little kaffeeklatsch, then why all the secrecy?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
It is a shame that it had to come to this but I admire the 3 big dogs for doing what needed to be done to keep the integrity of this forum going.

Thank you.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlordThe issues caused by "ganging up" of Freemasons in the Secret Societies forum has been the cause for this policy. Thanks to the impolite actions of a few "guests in our house" we've had to create a policy that prevents all future "ganging up" by other groups of members lacking common civility.


Good.

I'm a relative newbie, but I've been watching this spat with interest. I come here alone, to interact with other people who I take to be alone here. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people here who regard other members as firm friends, however, to gang up on someone in the style of a prematurely pubescent playground bully in the primary school playground is, to be honest, quite odious.

I don't care if you're a Mason, a Pope, or a member of the Holy Trinity, it is no way for a "civilised" domesticated primate to act. Don't kick them out for being Masons, kick them out for being puerile assholes.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And if you're talking about the fact that the only Masons I've met in real life looked and acted like products of in-breeding, I can't do anything about that fact.


You've obviously not met my father, who is also my uncle and my cousin


Actually, in all seriousness, there have been strong words on this thread about masons which I won't take personally. I understand that they are directed towards specific individuals who may have acted poorly.

Freemasonry is unique on this forum in that it is the only group under discussion whose members are willing and able to come to the forum and talk about it. There is a great opportunity to 'deny ignorance' regarding freemasonry and there is no reason that I can see why it should become a slanging match.


Originally posted by Amethyst
Freemasonry in itself is actually a religion....Did you know that the Jesuit General (Black Pope) is the top dog in Freemasonry?


Quite apart from the fact that this thread is not the right place for these comments, one of the reasons things have gotten so heated in SS is the use of absolutes for opinions, such as those above.

Amethyst - if you'd care to repost in SS, or u2u me, I'd be happy to address the above.

Everyone - lets all take a deep breath and start again



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman

Originally posted by Valhall
And if you're talking about the fact that the only Masons I've met in real life looked and acted like products of in-breeding, I can't do anything about that fact.


You've obviously not met my father, who is also my uncle and my cousin


Actually, in all seriousness, there have been strong words on this thread about masons which I won't take personally. I understand that they are directed towards specific individuals who may have acted poorly.

Freemasonry is unique on this forum in that it is the only group under discussion whose members are willing and able to come to the forum and talk about it. There is a great opportunity to 'deny ignorance' regarding freemasonry and there is no reason that I can see why it should become a slanging match.


Originally posted by Amethyst
Freemasonry in itself is actually a religion....Did you know that the Jesuit General (Black Pope) is the top dog in Freemasonry?


Quite apart from the fact that this thread is not the right place for these comments, one of the reasons things have gotten so heated in SS is the use of absolutes for opinions, such as those above.

Amethyst - if you'd care to repost in SS, or u2u me, I'd be happy to address the above.

Everyone - lets all take a deep breath and start again


The above comment by Amethyst is already under discussion actualy. You can easely find the thread by checking the warning Senrak has under his name, which he got from the thread concerning the "masonry is a religion" topic. In there he also got this warning for attacking the other discussion members about their language, in a similar and even more heinous(sp?) way then he did in his posting directed to Mayet in this thread.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
Freemasonry is unique on this forum in that it is the only group under discussion whose members are willing and able to come to the forum and talk about it.


Well, what they're willing to share, they will share anyway



Originally posted by Trinityman
There is a great opportunity to 'deny ignorance' regarding freemasonry and there is no reason that I can see why it should become a slanging match.


This is a very good point. I learned quite a bit from both Masonic Light and Trinityman. ML gave a lot of factual information, Trinity gave a lot of perspective and logical conclusions and do my best to thank them for that. There's a lot I don't like about the organization, but I'm sure they have their fair share of reasons why they don't like me either
.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Brilliant. Kudos to the staff, the 3 Amigos, and our dear Thomas Crowne on this one.

I've poked around the Secret Societies forum when not logged in, and decided not to bother.
All the people that are taking this the wrong way, we aren't saying that we don't want Freemasons here, not in the least. And this movement is NOT to ban all Freemasons, or to keep them from defending what they believe in. The people who were banned were breaking T&C, plain and simple. They were attacking other members and the board. That gets anyone who does it a ban, not just Freemasons.

This is a site for everybody, and we want to keep it that way, by not allowing things like this to happen.

Guys.

--Kit.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
billmcelligott and JustMe74 seem to be misunderstanding the original post, either on purpose to refocus the problem, or through some other knee-jerk reason.


Certainly not, I have read everything thoroughly. That is the problem with the written word it stays and can be looked at again.

Original wording reffered to in the original post of this thread, bullet points



  • This is a CONSPIRATORIAL BOARD, not a Masonic Lodge.
  • Masonry falls in the category of Secret Societies, therefore this is the forum in which it will be discussed. It will be discussed in that light.
  • This is not a place for members of a secret society to congregate, talk about the joys of Masonry among one another, look for recruits or guard this forum to shout down conspiracy theorists.
  • The Secret Societies forum has evolved into a glad-handing social club of masons who are ostensible participating to defend the group in which they are members.
  • null


all of which has been agreed with.

Then from the first post this thread:



any activity deemed an organized disruption of any ATS topic by any apparently organized group of members will subject the entire group of members to possible post banning or complete account privilege termination of the entire group of members.


You have to explain where I have mis read this, the word mason, masonry and Freemasons is used over and over by this and nearly every other post on this thread. It is only altered when we gat to the section above where it says " any **** group" , now I am not a group.

I am told it is OK to argue my corner, but when i do I am deflecting or manouvering. Just take it for what it is , someone elses opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join