New Bin Laden Tape; HE SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS NWO SPONSORSHIP!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Actually, this thread has absolutely nothing at all to do with whatever you were expecting. Instead, it is all about the ALARMING NEW TREND of certain people in this community (or some might say, overseeing this community) using a completely misleading thread title to…

Well, to do what? That is a great question, isn’t it? Why would somebody post a thread with a completely false title? Perhaps...


  1. To deliberately make members and guests feel stupid for clicking on what they thought was going to be an interesting thread?
  2. To deliberately make members and guests feel stupid for being interested in a topic that the thread poster feels is “manufactured” or not as important as other topics?
  3. To point out what the thread poster feels is stupidity on the part of readers interested in a topic that the thread poster feels is “manufactured” or not as important as other topics?
  4. To attract attention to a topic that hasn’t yet garnered the interest the thread poster feels it is due?
  5. To deliberately take attention away from a topic that the thread poster feels is “manufactured,” that the thread poster feels is not important, or that the thread poster feels is getting more attention than it deserves?
  6. To teach some sort of lesson to members and guests about what they should think is important and what they shouldn’t think is important?
  7. To showcase immunity to the T&C by which the rest of us must abide (particularly the following?

    By becoming a member of these domains, you agree to the following: 1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

  8. To control what we pay attention to, and therefore attempt to influence our thoughts (how's that for a conspiracy)?


Have I left any possibilities out? What do you think dear members and guests?

Oh, and sorry to disappoint you on the thread title, but fitting, don’t you think?




posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
As a long time lurker I can tell you that someone is looking to get their a$$ banned... and rightly so.

Grow up or go play in someone else's sandbox.



[edit on 11-4-2006 by Sarkazmon]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Faked me out! Heh Heh... I see "what" you mean. Point well-taken. Cheers!


JAK

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar


Have I left any possibilities out?


Only the one that slaps you in the face when you actually read the post.

Where are the rest of your examples of this new "trend"?

Jak

[edit on 11/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JAK


Originally posted by Hamburglar


Have I left any possibilities out?


Only the one that slaps you in the face when you actually read the post.

Where are the rest of your examples of this new "trend"?

Jak

[edit on 11/4/06 by JAK]


Not a shocking response, Jak. I certainly expected to get few responses of substance, and instead, several disdainful responses (particularly from the Mod squad, though I credit you your willingness to "protect your own").

Sorry, Jak, but that really doesn't say anything. What point is illustrated? Specifically.

As for the "trend" comment, it is clearly (I thought) hyperbole.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
This thread wasn't quite what it claimed.

Green levitating elephants once ruled this planet..!!

...and thought it quite apt for this thread.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
8. in most instances i have noticed.

A delicate question comes up and a tray of treats is presented elswhere.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Note. The usuall suspect's stay away.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Why in the world are you so upset over skeptic using a distracting title?

He was trying to jolt people, to wake them up to whats really going on. Here we have an industry, built up as a monopoly and one that still owns the vast majority of the conduits for electronic communication in the country, just handing over everyone private communications to the governement, when the government didn't even have a warrant or any judicial review over it, and no one even pays attention to it. Everyone is more scared about mexicans crossing the border.

Are you actually that upset over this?


Yeesh, get over it.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Have I left any possibilities out?


Yes.
9. To illustrate a point.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Sorry for the confusion, hopefully it illustrates a point.


And one instance does not a trend make, regardless of hyperbole. One instance, exaggerated does not indicate a 'trend'. It happened once.

Regardless of which reason (1-8) you decided to take personally, I suggest the illustration of a point is really all there is to it.
Nothing to be upset about at all.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Have I left any possibilities out?


Yes.
9. To illustrate a point.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Sorry for the confusion, hopefully it illustrates a point.



Again, I'll ask...what point, specifically?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And one instance does not a trend make, regardless of hyperbole. One instance, exaggerated does not indicate a 'trend'. It happened once.

Regardless of which reason (1-8) you decided to take personally, I suggest the illustration of a point is really all there is to it.
Nothing to be upset about at all.


I'm not particularly interested in a semantic argument on what is or is not a trend (and, given the definitions you kindly provided, one could make the case that a single instance of anything contrary to "the norm" is indicitave of a trend); it's not really relevant to this discussion.


Originally posted by Nygdan
He was trying to jolt people, to wake them up to whats really going on. Here we have an industry...Everyone is more scared about mexicans crossing the border.


For starters, I wouldn't say that I'm upset. Instead, I find it insulting to be told that an issue that many people care about is not worthy of the attention it is finally getting, particularly in the manner in which we all were told.

You may agree with SO that it is unimportant, and you may further agree that it is "manufactured." For others of us, this has been a sore issue for a long time, and many of us are glad for the attention being brought to the subject.

And, honestly, one actual trend I have noticed is a tendency for some "higher-ups" around here to be particularly insulting to members when they have the gall to question other "higher-ups." NOT SAYING THIS ABOUT YOU, NYGDAN, and that is not the point of this thread, but maybe it is something to think about when you deal with the many readers and members of this great site.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Uh now that we have heard from all the officials... what are you really saying hamburgler? Please spit it out in a sentence or less because I don't follow what this thread is about. You don't have to do it for me but I'm sure others will also be as confused as I am too.


JAK

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar

For starters, I wouldn't say that I'm upset. Instead, I find it insulting to be told that an issue that many people care about is not worthy of the attention it is finally getting, particularly in the manner in which we all were told.


Ahh see now things are clearer.

You have a bee in your bonnet over an news story you obviously feel very strongly about being described, or exposed even, as a diversionary tactic. And because you feel so strongly on the issue you believe any inference to it not being the most important matter presently, and that you may in fact have been duped or sucessfully distracted, must then be a personal insult. Hence your continued references to stupidity earlier.

You are in this for yourself. For your ego, or your pride perhaps. But not for any concerns you tried to hide behind earlier.

I wondered why firstly you offered numerous suggestions that the threads author posted with the intent of making people feel stupid. I did wonder what particular effect were you going for, as your post lacked any real substance I wondered if it was all drama and Tea to anyone viewing. But you are ticked off because the possiblity of immigration being a diversionary tactic detracts from what is the biggest thing for you right now.

To clarify, if the point made were along the lines of apparent media manipulation through the use of emotive issues and banner headlines in attempt to focus the attention of the majority on more palatable issues (looking from the authoritative viewpoint of those instigating said measures) and distract attention away from less desirable issues such as the violation of personal rights and freedoms (the slow encroachment of a 'Big Brother' state), you believe others can only interpret the possibility of your failure to recognise this as stupidity on your behalf. Hence the repeated references in your initial post.

So you feel insulted.

This is not the case. For one person to consider another as somehow incorrect (in this instance distracted) does not in any way necessitate a compulsion on their part to view the other as 'stupid' and it seems apparent from the post itself and other comments here that such was never inferred by the post in question. Rather it is a label that you feel has been placed upon you. As this does not come from any outside reference in the post or elsewhere, it seems likely to reflect your own internal prejudices, distorted opinions or however you might like to phrase it. An opinion of yours that anyone who disagrees with you on such fundamental matters is stupid and therefore you feel this must, in turn, be mirrored upon you. This is a very unhealthy take on life but one I can see which could easily lead to your interpretation. It is apparent now that your accusations were the reflection of your attitude.

That explains why you interpreted it so and why you were so upset/angry.

What you were really saying was 'I'm angry that you could even consider/would suggest that this matter which is of such grave concern to me doesn't actually deserve the importance which I have attatched to it' and had nothing whatsoever to do with misleading thread titles.

You should have just posted that.

Jak

[edit on 11/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Wow, Jak, quite a scathing (and not surprisingly as I noted to Nygdan above, insulting) review of my motivations. Unfortunately for all of us here (as it would save boatloads of time), you are incorrect.

You’re right that I have a “bee in my bonnet,” but to suggest that it’s because I am concerned that the immigration issue might be a diversionary tactic, and therefore my ego is bruised, is ludicrous at best. I actually thought I was clear about what bugged me in my later post, although I am not sure repeating it here will have even the vaguest chance of convincing you otherwise. I hope you’ll prove me wrong.

Certainly I was evasive in my original post. One might say I was trying to “illustrate a point” (why did you edit that out of your post?). I am annoyed that a serious player on this board would think it necessary, perhaps even ethical (in a very tenuous sense; maybe “cool” would be a better word here) to dupe members and guests into reading a post that I (or they) might otherwise not have read.

I am annoyed at the prospect of members/staff using deceit to further their own agendum (and let’s not beat around the semantic bush on this, the word “agendum” in this case is used in the strictly denotative sense of an item for consideration). There is established precedent for my annoyance, and if you don’t know about it, maybe one day you’ll look up my little feud with soficrow for starting a thread with an egregiously misleading headline in order to advance her agenda. It should be obvious to anyone involved in that little fiasco that I really despise deceit as a method for advancement of an agenda.

Finally, Jak, I am annoyed at the clear insinuation that anyone who is interested in this immigration issue, is, as I wrote in that thread, no better than an ostrich attracted to a shiny piece of tin foil. I’d like to think the leadership at this board thinks better of most people here, but that post, sadly, suggests otherwise.

Jak, I’m not mad at you (or anyone for that matter), so I hope you’ll consider this response rather than blow it off. I’d ask you to honestly take a moment to think about how cool it was or was not of me to start this thread the way I did. You personally noted:

Originally posted by Jak
You should have just posted that.


I say, what’s good for the goose… SO should have “just posted that,” and let the members and guests decide for themselves if they were interested in reading what he had to write. Had he written a headline like, “MSM is purposefully distracting audiences from AT&T story with immigration headlines,” I probably would have read it anyway, then commented accordingly. He didn’t, so I didn’t.

I’d ask you to consider for a moment the messages that get sent in what we all write. I didn’t appreciate the message in what SO wrote and the manner in which he did it. I hope that I’ve been clear now why. If you choose to still believe that it has to do with my bruised ego, so be it; there is nothing more I can do to change your mind. But let’s be honest, I have no reason to lie to you. I obviously don’t have a problem saying what’s on my mind.

So, if you think it necessary to continue to psychoanalyze me, I’d ask you to please do it in a U2U, as, given my clear rebuttal, I’m not really sure it’s relevant for this thread.

As to my numbered points, they are there because they are certainly all possibilities. I haven’t heard SO weigh in on it, so I can only speculate (which my weasel words in that first post should have made obvious). As it stands now, I still haven’t heard from you or anyone else, in very plain, concise language, what exactly was the “point” being illustrated. Not a call for sarcasm, I would just really like to see it plainly written. In short,


Originally posted by Jak
You should have just posted that.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
I am annoyed that a serious player on this board would think it necessary, perhaps even ethical (in a very tenuous sense; maybe “cool” would be a better word here) to dupe members and guests into reading a post that I (or they) might otherwise not have read.


So you're annoyed. That's fair. I'm not crazy about deceit either (as you may know). I guess I just don't see the intent behind SO's post as being deceit.

In other words, I seriously doubt that he said, "I'm going to go out and lie to these people to deceive them." I believe rather, that his intention was to make a point that he believes there are some serious stories going on in our country that are not getting the attention that they deserve. And the reason they're not getting the attention they deserve is that other issues like immigration, are being stuffed down our throats right and left.

Have you seen the number of immigration posts on the board? There are 20 on the first page of the Social Issues Forum. And that's not counting the ones that have been trashed. Every day we (as mods) see several more immigration threads begun.

This is a conspiracy board. It's only natural that critical thinkers such as ourselves ask, "Why the hell are there so many immigration stories in the news"?

And to be fair, the first line of SO's post was "Not Really". So you really didn't have to waste a lot of time reading the post to see what it was. I mean he explains it loud and clear, right up front, first thing. So he really didn't "dupe members into reading the post", as you alledge.



I am annoyed at the clear insinuation that anyone who is interested in this immigration issue, is, as I wrote in that thread, no better than an ostrich attracted to a shiny piece of tin foil.


I'm sorry but that insinuation is not clear at all. I think that's probably the root of the issue. You're pissed off because of someone's opinion. And it's an opinion that YOU assigned to him. The ostrich and tin foil stuff is ALL YOUR WORDS.

You read SO's post, attributed all sorts of meaning to it, then proceeded to get all kinds of pissed off about it. I suggest you go back and read it again and see exactly who 'insinuates' these things.



I didn’t appreciate the message in what SO wrote and the manner in which he did it.


What message? The one about the ostrich?



I still haven’t heard from you or anyone else, in very plain, concise language, what exactly was the “point” being illustrated.


I certainly won't speak for SO but I can tell you how I interpreted his post, which is obviously very differently that you interpreted it.

I got the message that SO thinks that the immigration issue might be (or is) being fed to us as a distraction to overshadow some more important stories going on in our government at this time. That's it. No ostriches, no put-downs, just a man sharing his opinion. That's what we do here.

I don't see anything for me to get upset about. And I have posted in the immigration threads. I am interested in the subject, too. I feel passionately about border control.

Now how do you explain that you got upset about SO's post while I didn't? Suppose it was the meaning you added to his words? Suppose it was your perception and not necessarily some kind of 'message' he was trying to put out?

Is that possible?



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I have to agree with hamburglar. If a non-mod did that (knowingly and purposely violating the T & C), even in BTS, the member would be flirting with a ban.

I give hamburglar about 30 days.

I came out of self-imposed silence to say this. The reason for my own boycott of posting on ATS has been because of related issues. In my case, mods using profanity at me, or trashing unrelated threads of mine in retaliation for pointing out where they violated the T&C.

I think it's sad for the mods themselves to flout their own rules. Not only does it encourage a lack of respect from members (like me), it encourages lesser mods to follow the precedent of "living above the law."

I give myself about 90 days.



JAK

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Hamburglar,

You were, as I said and as you have admitted, annoyed at the post. But as I explained, I don't think it has anything to do with your claims of misleading titles.

Giving you credit here I don't see how you could not see the link between the tactic used and the post content. Unless that is your eyes are clouded with anger for some other reason. Something which would then explain your continued references to stupidity and complete failure or denial to see the thread for what it was.

Your suggestion that this was ever anything else other than a rant does not sit well from the very first post. You post suggesting you are the wounded victim of insinuated insults, you try and retract another comment made and pass it off as something else. Then you finally admit that you're miffed because something you care about is, in your eyes, being belittled (which is what I said.) The post's title which you are so offended by was perfectly exemplary of the point it addressed. Can you really not see that? No, I don't believe so. Instead you choose not to. Then when this becomes apparent you play the victim of a scathing, insulting attack. Well this post must be causing you the same pain for it states nothing different.

Sorry, nothing smells good here at all. Again, you feel angry (and patronised perhaps) it has nothing whatsoever to do with misleading thread titles, which is what you claimed though, but is about the first quote of my second post. Words from your own mouth.

Gentle enough? You have taken offence at percieved belittlement of what is to you a major issue. My point still stands. You tried to create a little more drama and perhaps support for your cause by claiming that the thread was insulting and insuated others of a different opinion were stupid.

It wasn't and it didn't. Don't try and window dress this as something it is not.

Jak

[PS:


(particularly from the Mod squad, though I credit you your willingness to "protect your own").


Don't play a victim of the mod squad card here either, this is quite insulting. SO has the ability to come straight in here and, for example, tell me I totally misinterpreted his offering and you were completely correct. This is not any official line so don't try and make out you are being picked on by 'The Man'. Suggesting that there is some secret agreement that all Mods imediately publicly support any comment made by any memeber of staff only suggests you are further detatched from the workings and ethos of ATS than one might have thought.]


[edit on 12/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Jak,

I guess there is no pleasing you. I've explained twice now, you refuse to believe it. I told you in no uncertain terms what bothered me, you ignore it. I pointed out that this isn't the first time I've been bothered by similar tactics, you ignore that too. So, there is nothing more I can do for you. How someone who is unwilling to view the opposing side of a situation (or grant it even momentary credence) can be called a "moderator," is beyond me.

I'm not really sure I know what it is you think I backpedalled on, Jak, but I haven't edited any text out of my posts...

Everything I wrote is still up there, and I am pretty sure everything I've written meshes with everything else I've written. And, since it doesn't appear that you are interested in dicussing what I've said, so much as you are just mounting an impassioned defense for your friend, and since it doesn't appear that you will answer (in plain, concise language) the same question I keep asking, I guess I just don't care anymore about what you have to write.

A final thought for you, in terms of my motivations, we can't both be right. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that we need to defer to the person who's motivations they are, especially when that person clearly defines them.

As for BH, you are right, there are a boatload of those immigration stories lately (and the "Iran tests brand new _________ weapon" stories), and it is hard to miss that fact. It is also possible that SO is entirely correct in his suggestion that the MSM is trying to divert attention from one issue to the other.

As you note:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And the reason they're not getting the attention they deserve is that other issues like immigration, are being stuffed down our throats right and left.


But, couldn’t it be that they don’t necessarily deserve the attention (not saying so, just asking) just because you and others think they do? And couldn’t it be that the MSM is just waking up to what has been a hot-button issue for people for years? I think those three possibilities are equally likely (the latter even more so).


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So you're annoyed. That's fair. I'm not crazy about deceit either (as you may know). I guess I just don't see the intent behind SO's post as being deceit.


So you get it. I’m just pleased as punch. As for intent, you’re probably right. In all likelihood, SO didn’t mean to offend or insinuate. Nevertheless, he did, and where I’m from, legally speaking, intent is secondary to the act.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe rather, that his intention was to make a point that he believes there are some serious stories going on in our country that are not getting the attention that they deserve.


Finally someone is kind enough to just put it in concise language. I’d say this works reasonably well with my fourth bullet (To attract attention to a topic that hasn’t yet garnered the interest the thread poster feels it is due?). And okay, there’s nothing wrong with that if that was his intention. Since he probably is busy and probably isn’t going to come in here and confirm it personally, I’ll assume you are correct in describing his point.

I don’t want to repeat myself too much here, but I’m more concerned with the deception and the insinuation in the message.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sorry but that insinuation is not clear at all. I think that's probably the root of the issue. You're pissed off because of someone's opinion. And it's an opinion that YOU assigned to him. The ostrich and tin foil stuff is ALL YOUR WORDS.


Of course they are my words. I couldn’t describe a situation without using my words. Nevertheless, the insinuation is clear and not my imagination.

If you can’t see it, I’m sorry. Maybe when I have more time I’ll break it down completely the way I was taught in one of my many rhetoric and style courses (all the fun stuff like schema triggers, word choice, active voice; might even make a good OP/ED one day).

And, that doesn’t mean it’s deliberate. It could just point to a lack of care on the part of the poster, or a lack of realization that we are creatures of language, and language when ill-used does insult and does make insinuations regardless of intent.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And to be fair, the first line of SO's post was "Not Really".


Fine.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What message? The one about the ostrich?


Indeed.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
just a man sharing his opinion. That's what we do here.


Then why the deception? Just share your opinion, and if others think it valid or share it, they will comment, and if they don’t share it, they will comment or ignore it. THAT’S what we do here. We don’t trick each other into reading posts.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Now how do you explain that you got upset about SO's post while I didn't? Suppose it was the meaning you added to his words? Suppose it was your perception and not necessarily some kind of 'message' he was trying to put out?


Sure it is a possibility. Since I know, with no doubt, what I am concerned with, I’d have to say it is not a very strong possibility, but I’ll entertain it for a while. Meantime, I’d ask you how do you explain that I was annoyed about the post and you weren’t. Suppose it’s possible that as a moderator, you have a natural, understandable, and probably subconscious bias toward the postings of other moderators? Is it possible that you just missed the message that I (and others if you look around, we’re not the only posters in this thread) didn’t?

Honestly, I don’t really care what your answers are to these hypotheticals, as the ultimate answer is, “different strokes for different folks.” Some people have different hot buttons. This one is mine (and a few others).

For others, it’s AT&T. But can we agree that in the future it might be better to just come out and say it?

Oh, and BH thanks for being reasonable. You might teach some folks a thing or two.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
And, honestly, one actual trend I have noticed is a tendency for some "higher-ups" around here to be particularly insulting to members when they have the gall to question other "higher-ups."

I think that the reason why some of us can over-react or react so strongly is because there have been many times where people have attacked the board, and coordinated members on the board to stir up trouble, and this is how it usually starts.
Also, we really don't want ATS to be the story here because whats the point of a website that just discusses itself all the time? Its like when the media does those specials and reports on.....the media. Its frustrating and a distraction. ATS and how its administered isn't the story here, immigration, border security, domestic spying, judicial review, the constitution, those are the issues, not SO's bedside manner.
Just trying to show why these kinds of things don't get well received, when they're put into the forums. When they get sent in as complaints, then its a different story, because there's no nagging questions about what the real motivation behind it all is, who's pulling the puppet strings, etc.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Just trying to show why these kinds of things don't get well received, when they're put into the forums. When they get sent in as complaints, then its a different story . . .


Honestly, in my experience, when there is a complaint sent, it's no story at all.

I totally acknowledge the need to limit drama. To avoid slipping into the self-referential Marshall MacLuhan-world of the medium becoming the message.

I personally like S.O. even so, I think he made a mistake. that's all. It is an important mistake, as hamburglar points out, because it sets the precedent of other moderators violating the spirit of the T & C.

I TOTALLY agree that mods need to keep order, and I DON'T want to see a lot of threads hyping personal drama. On the other hand, the last couple of complaints (and U2U's) I sent didn't even get a response.

Part of keeping this site so great must be in having ears for criticism. Honestly, if Hamburglar had sent a complaint, would the response have been any different? Would the response he got have been more detailed? In my experience, the only response from complaint and u2u's is "your complaint was read. But you were wrong." This is especially true when it comes to the controversial art of 'moderation.'

Even if Hamburglar and I are completely wrong-headed in our approach to this percieved problem, can you see where, in a forum focused on discussion, we'd naturally want to discuss this?

No mod has yet adressed the issue of moderators mislabeling threads on purpose, for humor or other effect.

.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Meantime, I’d ask you how do you explain that I was annoyed about the post and you weren’t. Suppose it’s possible that as a moderator, you have a natural, understandable, and probably subconscious bias toward the postings of other moderators? Is it possible that you just missed the message that I (and others if you look around, we’re not the only posters in this thread) didn’t?


I really hate that you think my opinion on all this might be because I'm a moderator. I guess it's a fair judgment, but I am a member first and I've been a mod for about 2 weeks or something. Do you not know me as an ethical, strong-minded person who speaks out for or against what she believes in? Do you think being a moderator for 2 weeks has gone to my head that quickly and easily, that I would cast aside my own personal opinion to suck up to the boss??

I'm actually a little offended that you would think that my response to all this might be based on the foundation that I'm a moderator. That kinda hurts, to tell you the truth. But that's ok, I'll get over it.


As regards your question here, my answer is this: You can put anything out for observation, be it a post or a joke or a cartoon of a prophet and there will be people who are offended and those who are not. The people who get offended most likely take the item personally in some way, regardless of the intent. I think you felt personally affronted, if only a little, and you responded.

My personal take on this situation is that you read something into SO's post that wasn't there. That's my opinion only. Hell, he might be sitting back laughing gleefully that he pissed off some people, I don't know. I can't really say I know the guy. So I can't make that judgment.

But I can read.
And when I read that post, I don't 'get' the same message you do. I don't think he owes an explanation or anything. I don't think he did anything wrong.

So, I say go ahead and be pissed. (And I don't mean that in a mean way - I'm serious). People get offended. It happens when we hang out together. I think eventually you'll get tired of being mad about it and move on. You're a smart person and a valued member. You've got to know that people aren't perfect and we don't agree 100% of the time.



Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
No mod has yet adressed the issue of moderators mislabeling threads on purpose, for humor or other effect.


Isn't that what this whole thread is about? What do you mean it's not being addressed? That's what we're talking about here.

I'll tell you what. I probably wouldn't mislabel a thread. Not because it's against some T&C, but just because I wouldn't think of doing it!
But in the case of SO's thread, it never occured to me that anyone would consider it against T&C to the point of being deceitful!! And you know what? He's the freakin' boss! You have NO IDEA what he does for this place and what he puts up with. So what if he takes a little license (and I'm not saying he did) but SO WHAT? Are you going to nail him to the cross for being human like the rest of us? Let it go. This is an imperfect world. Hanging on to individual incidents of perceived 'wrong-doing' is just going to make you miserable.

As regards your complaints on complaints, I can tell you that I see every complaint that comes in and every single one has been addressed since I've been in there. The 'complainer' doesn't always get it resolved the way they want it to be, but the complaint is heard and acknowledged. I can understand how one might fall through the cracks every now and then on a particularly busy or dramatic day or something, but I have seen how important it is for us to deal with all complaints and issues in a respectful and professional way.

If I have learned something since becoming a mod here, it's that our job is not to moderate so much as make ATS a pleasant experience for everyone posting and reading here. It has been fairly drilled into me that we are here to serve, not police the joint.

I'm sorry if we have fallen short of your expectations on ocassion. And I'm new, so these 'rants against the man' are fairly new to me, and that's why I'm even participating in this thread. But I imagine after a year or so of seeing threads like this, knowing how hard I've worked at being the best mod I can be, I'm liable not to be so understanding and patient.

I hope you guys can get through this and just start posting again.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join