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.

 

AboveTopSecret.com is a Government COINTELPRO Disinformation Operation

page: 14
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Responding to the original post of this thread,

What I have observed is that the problem is not that other things are not discussed and tolerated. It is that the Moderators and Super Moderators sometimes come in and declare what is right and what is wrong. So discussion is tolerated, but then judged one way or the others by the moderators. This is why some people claimed that ATS seemed like COINTEL.

Prime example: In the "757 hit the pentagon thread", look at Springer's post on page 8, www.abovetopsecret.com... So starting off with large letters, he declares that it was a "pitiful day" on ATS when people started challenging CatHerder's claims that a 757 hit the Pentagon because CatHerder "has proven his/her POINT beyond much of anything that even comes close to logic." Sad day on ATS indeed.

What I have have come to think about ATS in that the Super Moderators generally like some conspiracy theories, but not others. Aliens good, 9/11 bad. I think they are conservative (some more than others) and conspiracies that would implicate conservative guys (or least appearing conservative) get ridiculed.

But I must admit the COINTEL theory is an interesting one. If you wanted to keep conspiracy theories at bay or knock them of course or even quash them, what better place to do that than on a discussion board that claims to discuss conspiracy theories? Let people discuss them a little, then tell them their theories are dumb.




[edit on 24-9-2006 by Unright]




posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unright
Prime example: In the "757 hit the pentagon thread", look at Springer's post on page 8, www.abovetopsecret.com... So starting off with large letters, he declares that it was a "pitiful day" on ATS when people started challenging CatHerder's claims that a 757 hit the Pentagon because CatHerder "has proven his/her POINT beyond much of anything that even comes close to logic." Sad day on ATS indeed.


And... that's an old post reflecting an old opinion. I think if you pay more attention to the current postings of Springer and myself, you'll find an evolution of opinion.

This is a very active discussion board with a near-organic evolutionary path... opinions change, ideas blossom, information fills in the blanks.

And... even the opinion of one or two owners doesn't reflect the "opinion of ATS", just the personal opinion of the person.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
If it is a an old post reflection old opinion dont you think that cathereders(aka govt agent
post be del.Now that thee is irrefeutable proof that the wtc towers had esplosives used(9\11:demolitions).Also the absence of catherder to come back to ats and defend himself from guys like JACKTRIPPER(pentagon security camera mystery post) is fishy.I demand his 9\11 post be locked and a mods message saying it has been debunked byguys like jack tripper and you(9\11 demolitos video
)

cheers



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by coolheretic
If it is a an old post reflection old opinion dont you think that cathereders(aka govt agent
post be del.Now that thee is irrefeutable proof that the wtc towers had esplosives used(9\11:demolitions).Also the absence of catherder to come back to ats and defend himself from guys like JACKTRIPPER(pentagon security camera mystery post) is fishy.I demand his 9\11 post be locked and a mods message saying it has been debunked byguys like jack tripper and you(9\11 demolitos video
)

cheers


As a fellow member of ATS I'd like to give my opinion on this post:

1. Why in the hell would ATS delete a thread on a theory that a member put a great deal of work into? If they delete catherders Pentagon thread, are you up for them deleting JackTripper's "who moved the taxi?" thread? Thank Gawd you're not making the calls here.

2. There has been no irrefutable evidence of explosives, and more specifically demolitions, in the towers. And that has nothing to do with a thread on the Pentagon.

3. There's nothing fishy about catherder being gone. He got pissed, posted he was leaving, and then left.

4. I think you better stop demanding. Before some one slaps the muffins out of you. This board doesn't negotiate with kidnappers, so don't try to hold it hostage.

In general, I think some one's acting a little too big for their bippies and needs to sit in the corner for a little while until they figure out they're a guest on a free board.

huh?

[edit on 9-24-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I posted links that contained lots of research about this TOPIC / subject.


And it silently dissappears.


No u2u no nothing.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm


DENY - INDEED



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Rusty,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you really don't know this, so I'll start at timetag 0.

This thread was started because of vicious, false rumors about ATS being COINTELPRO. Those rumors and lies were initiated by the site you linked to.

That site has caused undue harm and trepidation with its hateful lies, and I doubt very seriously that any of the 3 targetted Amigos are going to allow you to publish links back to the lies that started the whole nightmare.

If you want to spread the hateful false rhetoric of THAT site, go find you another website and post the links...k?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Ten Four.

Good Buddy.

Over and Out. (ed)



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
But but what about the freedom of speech?.WE still do have it over here.If someone can post anti ATS remarks then ats mods\amigos should defend themselves rather than del the post eg like the user above me.IS this the new orwellion double speak at work


[edit on 24-9-2006 by coolheretic]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by coolheretic
but but what about the freedom of speech.WE still do have it over here.If someone can post anti ATS post the ats mods should defend temselves rather than del the post eg like teh user above me.IS this teh new orwellion double speak at work


Aren't you the same person who just demanded that another member's thread be deleted simply because you don't agree with it?






[edit on 9-24-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
you know i fumbled.I should have said closed.So if i would have said closed would you have changed your stance?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
No, I would not have. Thank you for wanting to consider my opinion though. That's a step in the right direction.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
First about the two newly banned "members", "Cool heretic" and "sickofthis" these two have been banned many times before and just keep coming back with NO intention of actually joining the community and the serious discussion of the world around us.

No, they like to sign up under new names and cause as much disruption as a 13 year old mind is capable of. That, IMHO negates the responses in this thread from these two.


The poster who points out my writing of "It's a sad day on ATS"... has a very good point, just a misguided assumption attached to his point.


Back when I wrote that it's exactly how I thought. That certainly DOES NOT mean it is any sort of "official ATS position" and anyone who would accept what I say as a declaration of what is right or wrong beyond the Terms and Conditions of use would do so at their own peril.

My opinions and beliefs have changed vastly over the past couple years, you see, when I am presented with new evidence or alternative possibilities I CHANGE MY MIND.


I reserve the right to change it again too.

My beliefs have moved in several directions since I wrote that post, right now they are leaning toward a strong suspicion that MUCH is horribly incorrect with the "Official Story" behind 9/11 so much in fact, that I am concerned about the integrity of our government as a whole and the executive branch specifically.

The notion that something I, SkepticOverlord or Simon Gray wrote years ago is still what we think today is or that it is an "Official ATS position" on a subject is patently false. It is the personal opinion of the author unless it has to do with the Terms and Conditions of Use or "site policy" in general.

We are thinking, learning, Human Beings. Our education does not stop at the end of a statement, we don't "marry our theories" that's why we come here everyday, to LEARN.


Springer...



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
In relation to what Springer just said, I think folks should be concerned if they see individuals who can't or won't change their opinions as new information becomes available.

It's a bad sign, and a clear indication that the individuals are more interested in creating 'truth' than they are in discovering it.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I doesn't matter much that the post I mentioned was old or not. So the SuperModerators changed their minds on some thing. That's fine. The problem is not that they had the wrong opinion, but that their opinions become the judgements of the discussions.

So now are the people who try to defend the official position going to get riducled and told that their posts are creating a "sad day" on this site? CatHerder hurled a lot of personal insults that disagreed with him and there was no Admin Edit on his posts. So now can someone insult people who defend the official story and not worry infracting on the board rules?

I believe I have seen selective enforcemnt of the rules. It seems to me that members have to gauge the opinions of the Moderators to see what will actually be tolerated in a discussion. That's why there's so much pandering to the Mods. Take a look over the topics that have moderators involved in the discussions. Tell me people don't kiss butt. This is why. Push this all to the extreme, like with the 757 thread, and people wonder why the mods are so against an attempted refutal. They start to wonder if there's not more going on.

It's not what the mods opinion is, it is that they becomes overbearing and set judgement on the topics, sometimes.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by Unright]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
You got to see though, that there are mods for both and all sides of the arguement. Some super or wee mods may post their opinions and it don't matter if any one agrees or not, it is their personal opinion. It is not meant to sway the conversation, it may be just those members may be easily swayed or are in limbo themselves on the matter.

Staff have vastly different ideas as to subjects and topics, and our opinons pertaing to them, but when it comes to maintaining site policy, we are a team, and that means one. Out side of that, it isn't exactly easy posting as a member, while being staff.

Personally, I think you have a grudge, or an authority issue on this you need to resolve asap. But hey, you do your thing, I encourage it.




Originally posted by WyrdeOne
individuals who can't or won't change their opinions as new information becomes available.

It's a bad sign, and a clear indication that the individuals are more interested in creating 'truth' than they are in discovering it.


Those are the people who can not see the forest for the trees.

Moderators Are People Too. (and they have opinions)

[edit on 24-9-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unright
I believe I have seen selective enforcemnt of the rules. It seems to me that members have to gauge the opinions of the Moderators to see what will actually be tolerated in a discussion. That's why there's so much pandering to the Mods.


Absolutely not, the mods follow the code of the ATS Terms and Conditions.

If there is an instance where a member feels enforcement has taken place outside the handbook, the Complaint button is the way to go! In a case where a mod's decision is reversed it doesn't necessarily become a public spectacle. This does happen too. In fact only the other day I made a modding decision and it was deemed incorrect by some of our mod team... I agreed after seeing their viewpoint, decision reversed.

Your opinion of "selective enforcement" may simply be your inability to see the whole side of a situation. On the other hand, if you think something is slightly odd, speak out man!

In your 4 days as a member, you already seem to have alot of built-up ATS frustration... and to be honest, I think it's misguided.

This is a discussion community, people have varying opinions. We have some members here who have been registered longer than some of our staff. And I can think of a small number who have vastly differing viewpoints on controversial subjects from many staff members, but they haven't been banned, shut up, silenced, they're still here. A difference of opinion doesn't equate to a death sentence, so why you would think such a thing is beyond me.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
EDIT NOTE: This was a reply directed toward a now banned troll.


If I didn't so strongly try to adhere to the T&C of this site, I'd tell you where to stick your "opinion".

Let's just say, it would not be polite. ATS is as open a forum as you can get on the net. The Admin and Staff work HARD to keep our community INFORMED and INVOLVED, more than any other place I've ever been. That's not my opinion, that's FACT, bubba.


I hope SO or Springer make your name ring true(BANNED), and soon!


Good day,

X


[edit on 11/25/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Xatnys]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Suffice it to say, the name was prophetic.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Dude I maybe "new" as a registered member but I been trolling around here enough to be tired of all these pointless "ats is....(pick one) Cointelpro, U.S. gov, Nazi Spies, etc."



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Is there any truth behind Laura knights claim that the IP addresses for ATS/BTS/PTS address can be traced back to CIA at Langley.

See points out 213.206.128,213.206.129,123.206.130 Node Name GOV -BB21-LAN-14,GOV- BB22-LAN-15,GOV-BB23-LAN-16.Other sites have also come up with.One example being Letsroll.

We all realise that these sites are of the same as ATS and could be out to smear ATS.The same arguments could be used for them as much as ATS.They could well be govt and ATS not.

Why have other sites made these claims and have been the first to use Cointelpro which every govt consprircy buff knew excisted to make these claims to ATS before ATS members made them to the other sites.

The one thing about Mrs Knight that makes it more crediable is the fact she is much more open on her site than the ownership here.

That could just be a personnal choice of the 3 Amigos, but to have a conspiricy site and yet run it as if they are the conspritors makes the question keep coming around.

Sure maybe irritating to the owners, but the arguments Mrs Knights site offers would in a court of law make ATS look very very suspect.And after all we do seek govt disinfo and truth.It may come to a point where the 3 Amigos might have to stop using the Avatars for protection and come into the light. Mrs Knight may well be correct in her statements regarding the methods used by the owners regarding answering sensitive questioning.

And lets not forget if this is a similar operation to Cointelpro which did excist beyond a doubt and the resons for that operation still excist ATS aren`t gonna admit it.

The govt controls secret publications in the mainstream, so it`s only logical for the internet to be controlled somehow.

One thing that l would like to know from ATS themselves is how ATS could afford to employ one of Americans largest law firms to deal with a small copyright issue.

Can Simon clarify why he uses the address he does.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join