Lear thread "scrubbed"?

Originally posted by blowfishdl
No offense to ATS, you gotta do what you gotta do fellas. However, I seem to see a ton of censorship throughout this site.

You know, I've been thinking the same for a little while now. We have about a half a dozen members whose sole purpose is to post things here and then complain when it's pointed out that it isn't ATS material. Those same members are also the ones that jump on other threads like this, complaining about "censorship." I'm beginning to think that these might be members that have an agenda to paint ATS in a poor light.

The above is my opinion and mine alone.

Damn, you even need a disclaimer these days.

It does to me seem to be an extended hit piece written by a disgruntled former Lear associate...what I am wondering, however, is if Mr. Hansson can further substantiate his allegations with audio, video, or letters by Lear and I have written him an email asking him to do the same. I will keep the forum posted of any major developments if they arise. I will not disclose Mr. Hansson's email address because I don't want him to get spammed.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by blowfishdl
No offense to ATS, you gotta do what you gotta do fellas. However, I seem to see a ton of censorship throughout this site.

You know, I've been thinking the same for a little while now. We have about a half a dozen members whose sole purpose is to post things here and then complain when it's pointed out that it isn't ATS material. Those same members are also the ones that jump on other threads like this, complaining about "censorship." I'm beginning to think that these might be members that have an agenda to paint ATS in a poor light.

The above is my opinion and mine alone.

Damn, you even need a disclaimer these days.

I think what's going on is the simple phenomenon that rules cause conflict. The staff and probably most of the members here at ATS agree with the rules. However, there are some people who have a genuine disagreement with ATS's rules. With two diametrically opposed groups, conflict such as that seen here and on other threads is bound to erupt.

Originally posted by intrepid

You know, I've been thinking the same for a little while now. We have about a half a dozen members whose sole purpose is to post things here and then complain when it's pointed out that it isn't ATS material. Those same members are also the ones that jump on other threads like this, complaining about "censorship." I'm beginning to think that these might be members that have an agenda to paint ATS in a poor light.

The above is my opinion and mine alone.

Damn, you even need a disclaimer these days.

You are SO wrong about this intrepid.
That opinion is NOT yours alone.
I know of at least one monkey, who shares those same thoughts.

Well, intrepid and spacedoubt, as the old saying goes "If you don't like the message, don't shoot the messenger". Maybe those breaking the rules are doing so deliberately to paint ATS in a bad light, but I don't think accusing the rule breakers of sinister motives is constructive.

I'm not against the rules or the moderators, I just don't want to see some kind of "them vs. us" mentality developing between those who are pleased with the rules as is and those who are not. Those who accuse often wind up getting accused.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
So, if someone posts 3rd party information, op-ed or otherwise, from a former colleague of Lear's, it should be allowed for discussion. If the thread degenerates to direct abuse of John Lear the ATS Member, than you (meaning ATS Staff in general) can edit or delete the posts and ban the offending ATS member. It is not as though your hands are tied.

Bottom line- John has put himself out there for critique. Regardless of the source, let the ATS members make their own determinations with all possible information.

I believe much of John Lear's theories - but I fully agree with the quote above. And if the story is nonsense he can easily prove it by answering to related questions from forum members and telling his side of the story.

This is (or we all expect it to be) a "deny ignorance" forum. Deleting access to possible compromising information to a well known member of the ATS community is ignorant (I am NOT talking about posts)

Should we now delete threads, when they contain information "anti Bob Lazar", "anti George Bush" etc? Or are we talking double standards?

George

Couple of thoughts here:
First, I see a whole lot of threads on this site whose sole purpose is to paint marginalised communities...gays, religous minorities, villain of the month...in disparaging terms, yet it takes a really outrageous statement to attract the attentions of the mods. Fair or not, that's the nature of the site.

Now John Lear has set himself up to be a lightening rod by virtue of both his commentary and his disclaimer, so there is a certain obligation to take the flack along with the adoration. It's simply part of the territory he's staked out for himself.

Secondly, if you're unsure of the integrity of the site being able to withstand this onslaught...put it in RATS, where it will get a more measured appraisal.

Finally...what's Lear got to say? He doesn't appear to be the kinda guy that leaves others to do the talking for him.

But...I'm talking outta my butt here, aren't I, cuz the thread was censored before I saw it.

uberarcanist

I agree regarding the "Us vs Them" mentality.
We all try to not slip into that mode.

I still feel like a "freshman" mod. It's only been a few months for me.
But even in that short period of time, it appears that some sort of "poke and run" behavior has really ramped up. Testing the T&C's if you will.
Right at the edge of the rules, that thin line of interpretation.
Then, when such a member is called on their behavior, sometimes not even warned, just a U2U. BAM! defensive mode. Then come the offensive public postings..calling the mods Nazi's, or whatever.
TO me, it feels..scripted, practiced, intentional.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Finally...what's Lear got to say? He doesn't appear to be the kinda guy that leaves others to do the talking for him.

He actually can't right now --

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I still feel like a "freshman" mod. It's only been a few months for me.

Which leads me to the question, is there an "adopt a mod" thread in the mod hangout that none of the regular members can access?

Peace

Look, I said it's been covered here before, IT HAS. Use search, read all about it. John is a very Big Boy and he takes his lumps with aplomb.

Springer...

Ye Olde Drama Clubbe

For those more interested in the actual topic than the drama surrounding it, here's an existing thread in the appropriate forum for it:

Questions for John Lear

It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure the Hansson articles were discussed there.

If anyone can read through that thread and still think there's some sort of "coverup", by all means please post your opinions and/or questions for Mr. Lear there.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
It does to me seem to be an extended hit piece written by a disgruntled former Lear associate...what I am wondering, however, is if Mr. Hansson can further substantiate his allegations with audio, video, or letters by Lear and I have written him an email asking him to do the same. I will keep the forum posted of any major developments if they arise. I will not disclose Mr. Hansson's email address because I don't want him to get spammed.

yes, good idea. interesting.

Wanna know what I think? Well, you're gonna hear it anyway!!

I think, that if you don't think someone is being legit on here, that you should do the proper research to prove said claims, and then post them in a constructive, non-judgmental way, such that no one is offended.

This is quite unlike what most members will do. People like to point fingers at someone that's wrong, just so they can feel like they've "outed someone", when it doesn't serve any purpose other than to separate us and tick us all off.

In other words, do your homework before you start making false claims about someone. Prove that they did what you say that they did. Then we'll believe you, but not before...

TheBorg

Remember how much trouble it caused for the beatles when the females all wanted more of Paul at the expense of the rest of the band?

It won't be good to have favoritism and all members should be mature enough that babysitters don't have to come in and be sure that all is as it should be based on the T&C.

I agree with the other poster. Those who come on this site and can't show respect and commom courtesy to fellow members should be suspended, warned, or whatever swiftly and the threads should be able to continue without the disruptive forces.

At times the disruptive forces will endulge heavily on purpose it seems just to eliminate subjects their agendas may not want to be discussed.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by interestedalways]