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.

 

New Policies for Political Bickering on ATS ## MAKE IT STOP! ##

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anon4this1


Not so sure on this. I've seen threads moved to the garbage by Mods for voicing opinion. Troubleshoota today just saw what happens w/ opinions....


[edit on 5-7-2006 by Anon4this1]


Um, no. He brought into a thread about ending political baiting, ahhh, POLITICAL BAITING.

The bottom line gang is that this is a PRIVATE site. If they want the site dedicated to nude pictures of Bea Arthur they are well within their rights to do so. Personally I'd be outta here but that just me.




posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Id also like the same to apply to overactive and Harsh debunkers. Many of them feel the need to tell someone how stupid their idea's are yet get offended and complain when you sling it back. Im sure many here know exactly who and what Im talking about.
So someone thinks the moon is cheese and i swear the same overzealous de bunkers come in and Humiliate what another person poses for discussion. While I may not agree with some peoples postulations I figure Who am I to say they are Wrong. Rather I give my opinion without the insults unlike quite a few of our active debunkers. Also there is some discrimination of what is and what isnt allowed on this forum and seems to be ever changing. I find it hard to keep up with each of the latest rule enforcements and frankly may not return as much because of it. This statement is just an opinion and please Do Not take it personally.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
When we talk about voicing our opinions, please remember that saying something like, "Just another liberal Bush hater" may very well be 'voicing your opinion', but it's also political baiting.

And adding "just my opinion" to the end of it doesn't change anything.



Mmmm... Bea Arthur... She's hot!



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
If they want the site dedicated to nude pictures of Bea Arthur they are well within their rights to do so. Personally I'd be outta here but that just me.


Oh boy.....I'm not goin' anywhere.

What is this "politics" you speak of? "Left wing", "right wing"?.....should this discussion be on a sports thread? Nothing more than "buzzwords",...empty of real meaning.

I have such disdain for the entire political process in the U.S., that I don't have the stomach to align myself with either of the major parties. Or, the concept of liberal or conservative. In fact, I find that type of pigeon-holing on par with the nasty practices of racism or ethnicism. Just another way to promote dissent between people who ultimately, still need to feed, clothe, and protect the family.

Maybe I won't be compelled to cut and run from threads so quickly now.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
It's all about RESPECT guys. You don't have to respect another person's politics but why not just respect the person? Why not respect the site? We're all here, or should be, to gain knowledge and share it.

So what is respect?

One look dictionary:

noun: courteous regard for people's feelings

noun: a feeling of friendship and esteem

verb: show respect towards

I see a lot of this on the board between opposing viewpoints. There are a few though and this initiative is what is being addressed here.

As to the member that thought that another members thoughts make him want to call them "idiot" or "moron", you may not be ATS material. If this speaks to you though, you just might be.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
What is this forum about? Expanding your mind through new insights through discussion and sharing.

I remember when I first came here I hadn´t heard of people like Alex Jones, and now he´s in my head. Not sure if that is neccessarily a good thing, but at least now I know he exists and has certain views on certain things which may or may not be of interest to me.

Same goes for many, many other topics; I was (and am) truly blown away by the richness of this forum, and how it stands for denying ignorance, because that´s what it is: expanding the minds of those who have not yet seen all opinions on past and current events, especially opinions who differ from official explanations.

As fas as mods go, they are not perfect, and at times may over react to situations which do not merit a strong response, but hey, they have the right to be annoyed, as any other human may. Overall the moderation quality on the forum is excellent, but with an increasing rise of bickering I can only assume this latest measure has to be taken to make the task of moderation easier and somewhat separate the name calling for true discussion which creates enlightenment. Give the mods a break please.


There are plenty of forums which are not correctly moderated and hence can only be compared to open sewage systems. Not so for ATS, and it should stay that way.

Having an opinion doesn´t mean by default that you choose the side of someone who has a similar opinion, but lately too much of us vs them has been going on here, which frankly lowers the quality of ATS and does not help in finding answers relating to conspiracies.

So let´s team up, remove the clutter, and advance knowledge on conspiracies so ignorance is truly denied.

That´s what this forum should be about in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Fantastic! Can we also have an outright ban on the terms "right wing" and "left wing"?


Like with profantity? Mabey automatically replace the term with a horses ass emoticon or something?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by VType
Id also like the same to apply to overactive and Harsh debunkers. Many of them feel the need to tell someone how stupid their idea's are yet get offended and complain when you sling it back. Im sure many here know exactly who and what Im talking about.


If a members does not supply any evidence to back up their assertions (and we all know what evidence is, its not some connect the dots BS) then another member is well within his/her rights to "debunk" that theory and counter it. The burden of proof is always on the one doing the alleging. This may be a conspiracy site but that does not mean you don’t have to have supporting evidence.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by VType
Id also like the same to apply to overactive and Harsh debunkers. Many of them feel the need to tell someone how stupid their idea's are yet get offended and complain when you sling it back. Im sure many here know exactly who and what Im talking about.


If a members does not supply any evidence to back up their assertions (and we all know what evidence is, its not some connect the dots BS) then another member is well within his/her rights to "debunk" that theory and counter it. The burden of proof is always on the one doing the alleging. This may be a conspiracy site but that does not mean you don’t have to have supporting evidence.


Right, it's the WAY you do it that's the point. Civillity is the ticket.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This may be a conspiracy site but that does not mean you don’t have to have supporting evidence.

Unless you're posting in the ATS Skunkworks


I have a question, would using the term "neocon" or "neoconservative" come under the auspices of this thread? The term "neoconservative" is an epithet specifically used by those holding Staussian ideology to describe themselves. So is that term, sans inflammatory adjectives, acceptable?

[edit on 5/7/06 by subz]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by VType
Id also like the same to apply to overactive and Harsh debunkers. Many of them feel the need to tell someone how stupid their idea's are yet get offended and complain when you sling it back. Im sure many here know exactly who and what Im talking about.


If a members does not supply any evidence to back up their assertions (and we all know what evidence is, its not some connect the dots BS) then another member is well within his/her rights to "debunk" that theory and counter it. The burden of proof is always on the one doing the alleging. This may be a conspiracy site but that does not mean you don’t have to have supporting evidence.


Right, it's the WAY you do it that's the point. Civillity is the ticket.

Agreed. But we used to be able to post alternate theories for discussion as well and even in those the De bunkers are sometimes very much disrepectfull. So you dont believe it. Post your opinions with what ever factual retorts you have and be done. Instead of constantly humiliating people with "facts". Also some of our De bunkers facts are not worth anything more than the paper they are wrote on. I find it funny that WP 23 has tried to De bunk me once again. Are you my shadow or what? Thanks for the interest though.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by The_Doctor
"If you think a staff member is creating problems you have the ability to let us know by filing a complaint."

I was just voicing my opinion...


So what's the problem then? Ie.....


Kinglizard gave you an honest, fair answer to your post and you come back with attitude?

Seems to me you just want to bitch about the staff. I don't get paid enough, oh, wait, I get paid NOTHING, to deal with crap like this.



Indignant about not being paid to do something you volunteered to do - I am sure that if you are tired of dealing with this "crap" you can unvolunteer yourself, eh?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Can we also have an outright ban on the terms "right wing" and "left wing"?


It's not about banning certain words, either. Ann Coulter is a right wing pundit. That's pretty clear. It's when we start pecking at each other with these generalizations that the problem appears. It's when we generalize, using these terms. It's when we stack a bunch of people under one moniker and assign certain attributes to them that the crap starts surfacing.

There are politicians that are liberal left-wing democrats, but we can't assume that because someone supports abortion that they also support gun control.

It's also about making a non-political argument into political arguments. If a 9/11 debate is ongoing and someone comes in and says "You just feel that way because you're a neo-con" the debate has now been made political instead of about the facts of the case.

Am I making any sense?




[edit on 5-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by uplander

So what's the problem then? Ie.....


Kinglizard gave you an honest, fair answer to your post and you come back with attitude?

Seems to me you just want to bitch about the staff. I don't get paid enough, oh, wait, I get paid NOTHING, to deal with crap like this.



Indignant about not being paid to do something you volunteered to do - I am sure that if you are tired of dealing with this "crap" you can unvolunteer yourself, eh?


I didn't say I was tired. BTW, where's the "thank you" for keeping the site clean so that you can post, even if it is to diss the staff?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
It will be hard to get the political "baiting" to leave. Just as the Mod stated in the opening post, politics are wraped up in most conspiricies.

911 is heavily filled with "theroies" relating to the Bush administration. Whether they are true or not can be researched and stated. There will be "Therioes" that will link the Clinton administration into it. Again these can be researched. This can keep going back to Carter and Reagan. The point is if we(the people that actively use this site) are going to get our Political feelings hurt with the possibility that "our chosen party" might be dirty in reguards to conspiricies, then we will never be able to do what it is that we all came here for in the first place. That is find the real truth to the conspiricy that we are interested in at the time.

I hope that the actions of the Mods to send those of us that get out of line to the political side on posts, will clear our thoughts to the point that we again can discuss and review in a civil manner any and all conspiricy topics.

Those that come here have some vision, some instinct, some feeling that many things are not as they seem. Maybe we can come together and find the truth on some of these topics.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Am I making any sense?

Yes you are, as you usually do


I feel the terms "right wing" and "left wing" are a) bogus and 2) loaded terms which add nothing to the discussion but to label people with useless, diversionary banners.

I would liken them to the use of the word "Nazi", using the term to discuss the events of 1930 to 1945 Germany would be appropriate but labelling a contempory person a "Nazi" is not appropriate.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by VType
Agreed. But we used to be able to post alternate theories for discussion as well and even in those the De bunkers are sometimes very much disrepectfull.


You still are, just add something corroborating your "alternative theories".
And example of something you shouldn’t do. You shouldn’t keep telling someone that all their sources are wrong and or somehow flawed because they are controlled and or written by the "Elitists", "NWO", and or Government while offering nothing to substantiate that claim. And of course I do not mean you specifically, just a hypothetical example which may be about anyone here on ATS.



Originally posted by VType
Thanks for the interest though.


No problem, what can I say, for better or worse your posts compell me to respond.

[edit on 5-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Hey intrepid,

I'm confused. Now I tend not to get into political baiting because I'm a moderate and not a fan of extremism in any form...well mostly any form.

But, I am still allowed to make fun of other peoples religious beliefs right?

I kid, I kid ya crazy canuck


I for one prefer the polite approach, it's really easy to just start slinging mud from one side to another. This should be (and for the most part is) almost a safe haven from the polarization that surrounds us constantly.

Anybody who feels diffrently is obviously a godless communist. Kidding, just kidding.


So I'll say it, thanks for keeping my potty mouth in check...dirty mutant.

Spiderj


[edit on 7/5/2006 by Spiderj]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I feel the terms "right wing" and "left wing" are a) bogus and 2) loaded terms which add nothing to the discussion but to label people with useless, diversionary banners.


I agree and that's why I don't use them very much (I don't think) if at all.

And the way I see all this is that if EACH of us takes responsibility for our responses and does our very best not to respond to political baiting when it does come up we can improve things a whole lot.

I mean, think of the thread where one guy comes in and throws a political baiting party. If nobody comes, he's going to take his party favors and go somewhere where he can get a rise out of the other members. If it just doesn't work here, he'll go home.


It's up to us.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
The point is if we(the people that actively use this site) are going to get our Political feelings hurt with the possibility that "our chosen party" might be dirty in reguards to conspiricies, then we will never be able to do what it is that we all came here for in the first place. That is find the real truth to the conspiricy that we are interested in at the time.


BINGO!




Now I will self-flagelate myself for a one word post so as not to offend those that would point it out as the actions of a hypocritical mod.
.

[edit on 7/5/2006 by Gools]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join