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.

 

**ALL MEMBERS** A REMINDER OF WHY WE ARE HERE AND HOW TO ACT.

page: 6
56
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 


I hear everything you've said. On some things I agree and others not so much.

It's my opinion that angels like Ziba have every freedom to open a thread and relate their story. That's what ATS is all about, I think. It's not all about the debunkers and believers. We have to let them all in. It's up to them to decide what to post. It's up to them to bring what they have to bring. ONCE they post, it's up to you to decide whether they have merit or not. It's also up to you how you respond to the post. If you respond with outright anger at the reasons for posting such material, chances are that you will be responded to with equal aggression. From that point is snowballs into a ugly thread, that which we are discussing. If you respond with intellegently researched data that refutes the OPs material. You will probably either trip the OP up to "Panic Mode" where we all can see they have nothing tangible as they flail and splash, or they will counterpoint with something else and the debate continues.
If you think from post one that the OP is a nut (ala Ziba) you can mock him to oblivion, like I shamefully did, or do the logical thing and skip it all together, which I didn't in that case.
We only feed the bad guys by arguing with them, and if no-one responds to such blather, the hoaxers wither and die.

But ya have to let the newbies post.
----------------------------------
What if a businessman finishes up his day, arranges his desk, gathers up his hat and raincoat and says goodbye to the friendly security guard at the front door of his office building. Then let's say that as he's walking to his car in row J and glances over the field next to his building there and sees a weird looking thing hovering over the trees. He stops, holding his key out towards the car door and just stands there for two minutes, looking at this scene that HAS to be out of a movie.
What if he never saw anything like this before and has no idea what to do? He's a businessman. Two kids in middle school, wife of 12 years, and a great hobby building tall ships out of matches in his basement. He golfs on Tuesdays and likes a Gin Martini, not Vodka.

Who IS he gonna tell this to? His wife? Not yet, but, maybe later. Jim in the next cubicle? Yeah, maybe him, he watches X-Files and all that stuff.

So, the next day he goes to Jim and asks him some weird "What if you were just walking around and saw something like this....?" questions to feel him out on his stance and all. It turns out Jim has seen a few odd things and found some answers on this website- "You should ask about it there." Jim tells him.
Well, the businessman doesn't do too much surfing and once he find this website, he reads all about how people who see UFOs deal with it. He decides to try this "Posting" thing and tell his story.
He haphazardly posts a bit about his sighting and, still nervous about talking about it, decides that he'll take another look tomorrow to see if anyone has anything that'll help. He resumes his day, and in the morning, goes to work, now glancing everywhere at once because he's afraid he might miss that thing if it shows up again. He goes on with his day. From lunch to the drive home to the den to that website to see if anybody knows what that thing was. He finds his thread, opens it up, and is flabberghasted because 35 people are asking him about shape and size and distance and why he didn't take full color photos using the latest Canon Rebel and a tripod and how DARE he make a post and disappear for a whole day and if he doesn't come up with some sort of proof in the NEXT twenty-fours or he'll be banned (Good God what does THAT mean?) Frankly, he's afraid to keep going. There are some serious, serious people wanting answers he never thought he'd need. So he does his best to remember all those little nuances of that crazy two-minute episode outside work. He posts what he remembers and, again, shuts it down and continues his day. The next day will be worse, he thinks. These guys on this site want answers he just doesn't have.

They do.
He doesn't.
He's now being called a hoaxer. And one guy actually called him a liar. He just saw a weird thing. He wanted to know more and now he's a hoaxer in their eyes! He says to himself "This is so not worth any of that" And never posts again.

The site thinks it's won and eliminated a threat to the truth.
The guy still looks everywhere at once. Scared though.

------------------------------------------

It's happened here. Because there are those so wrapped up in "Getting the Truth" that they forget that not everyone is prepared for what they are going to get just by showing up here to tell someone what they saw.
It's a hypothetical scenario, but, I don't think it's too far-fetched.

It was also very long. I apologize for that.

But do you see my point? We can be scary to new people. We talk about some crazy stuff here and there are those witnesses who aren't prepared for the grilling we give. You would deny them the right to courtesy and a bit of potential solution? Because they suck at typing and never posted online, much less on ATS? We have to keep the diverse, no matter how different they are.
Ignore the ones you have no time for. The nuts, the hoaxers, the braggards. Post where YOU want to make an impact, not where THEY try to make an impact.
It will clear up most of YOUR complaints.

My $.02,
with a $2.00 tip for reading it all.
Cuhail




posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
How effective would a member driven voting process on certain threads be? It would only be applied to those threads that have a somewhat overt fantastical theme to it and would have to meet certain criteria (evidence markers or lack thereof, willingness of the OP or claimant to provide certain proofs upon admin request, hints of evasion or puposeful diversion, behavior of the OP and thread responders, etc. etc.).

Some sort of litmus test that can be applied or predetermined parameters that could be followed....

If a thread devolves into what happened in the TLH thread, lock it down for review after explaining what is going on to the OP until cooler heads prevail or if a majority consensus agrees that the thread is unprovable fantasy driven muck, ship it of to the skunksworks where it belongs and be done with it.

Probably not practical, just brainstorming. I understand from Springers viewpoint the urgency of not willfully isolating a segment of the ATS membership and on the other hand I do see a need to somehow efficiently and quickly segregate the obviously fantastic away from what most of us members here want to be serious levelheaded discussion about a fantastic subject.

Somewhere in the middle is the answer?

Edit just to add that I am a firm advocate of the "pass the thread up if you feel the urge to either go caveman on the OP or a desire to postrage other members into oblivion" crowd. Is it too hard to use a little discipline and self control when posting? Nobody is perfect but we all can try our best when needed....I would hope.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Lost_Mind]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Well I'm glad this was said. I generally like this UFO forum, and would love to post more often in here, but was slammed rather hard by another member for me posting my beliefs, somewhat stayed away since then.

Call it being weak on my part, but I'm sure many others feel the same way.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Very good points, Cuhail. It seems like our own member base can be worse than the government disinfo agents we try to expose. If we shut down new members with real experiences at first glance, we are worse than those disinfo agents. Hell, the agents are probably thinking to themselves, "We don't need to call these stories hoaxes to confuse the public. Let the member base of ATS do it for us! They're great at it!"

I think everything has been said in this thread that needs to be said. I'm sure we now know what to do going forward.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
BTW, SPRINGER--A MALFUNCTION OF SORTS . . .

when I add a star to someone's post--then--if I REFRESH the page--I get the error msg on black screen that I "can't rate that post"

Must get out of that page to del err
edit 2 add this

reply to post by Damocles
 




what if we were lucky enough to get that ONE guy or gal out there with a ground breaking story to tell who just didnt have the skill or ability to tell a story in a well presented manner? or had JUST experienced it and were still too rattled to relay all the details? would we want to run the risk or losing the rest of this story?

now as ive said im a big fan of just throwing the cards on the table in one shot but that may not always happen.


I think these are very key points.

Most folks . . . are a jumble of feelings and memories about

ANY

emotional experience. All the more so a very super strange, mysterious, conflicted, 'other worldly' etc. paranormal sort of experience.

Professional interviews and interrogations repeatedly visit key points and aspects because awareness, memory, insight etc.

TEND TO COME IN WAVES OR LAYERS OF AN ONION sort of uncovering phenomenon.

Many folks are quite anxious about sharing anything--even behind a pseudonym.

They NEED to feel in a VERY SAFE place to be able to even think clearly or to articulate clearl TO THEMSELVES, much more so strangers.

Virtually NO ONE tells a story flawlessly. IF THEY DID, that would be evidence in itself of fakery.

IN TRUE, GENUINE STORIES, THERE ARE VIRTUALLY ALWAYS INCONSITENCIES because we are human and remember things in a somewhat jumbled way according to all kinds of preconditioning experiences as well as idiosyncratic memory factors.

Just describing a picture puzzle after 3 minutes of prept time looking at it . . . 12 people would have 12 very different narratives and virtually all of them would have inconsistencies. And that's a VERY SIMPLE TASK with a VERY CLEAR AND SIMPLE stimulus that's in clear light on a stable table and not moving; complex actions, lights, shadows etc. And, if one were to focus on small parts of each of the 12 narratives, it would be easy to ASSUME that they were not even talking about the same puzzle or event--the SEEMING INCONSISTENCIES would be so HUGE--SEEMINGLY.

Yet, if we pounce on every microscopic shred of an inconsistency as though it were proof positive that the OP was a troll, stupid, lying, hoaxer, ignorant, not worth bothering with . . . beneath our contempt etc.

how will that help us or him or ATS or the whole field of UFOLOGY???

When one throws in the issues of fear, insecurities--which can be super huge and intense even in "average" people's lives . . . the "high strangeness" factor . . .

THEN it can be super difficult for folks--even folks used to verbal narratives--particularly folks NOT used to sharing narratives about their personal lives--it can be SUPER DIFFICULT to just simply

GET IT ALL OUT remotely clearly, coherently, believably--even to themselves. It's a convoluted, fractured, tortured process for most average people. THEY NEED SAFE SUPPORTIVE FEELINGS to do it remotely well.

ASSAULTIVE ATTACKS on every microscopic detail--particularly INSTANTLY or until they've done their supported more or less best--such attacks really are super counter productive and work against the goals of ATS wholesale.

BESIDES ALL THAT--WE ALL NEED GRACE. None of us are perfect at much of anything--especially remembering and relating complex stories . . . often in the night . . . groggy . . . . emotionally conflicted etc.

So often, too many here on relate to the OP as though the OP has a video taken from 5 different vantage points including satellite . . . with a transcript of all the sounds and a commentary from 7 experts on various aspects of the experience . . . and with all this at their fingertips, they are typing out their narrative on ATS.

That's just NOT reality, folks. Quit pretending it is. It's destructive to the OP and to our goals here.

IT IS NORMAL to have insight, awareness, memory grow as one tells and retells an experience. And some memories will conflict with earlier ones--just because one is human. AVOID POUNCING ON THAT as evidence of a deliberate desire to lie. It's JUST HUMAN.

IF one is patient and supportively draws a person out . . . even repeatedly . . . kindly, tenderly . . . eventually, it will be obvious even to the OP what is a silly and obviously absurd contradiction. No one will NEED to call anyone a liar.

I have begun to think that a LOT OF THE LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! phenomena on ATS has a LOT MORE to do with the accusers--their insecurities; needs to put other people down; be in control; be seen as some lofty expert etc. than it has anything to do with the flaws of the OP or the OP's narrative.

That's deplorable. Get your emotional/psychological stuff tended to elsewhere and otherwise than at experiencers expense.

AT LEAST keep such compulsive urges in check.

Springer, I hope there's some appreciation for the above on the part of at least SOME of the senior better mods and the 3 amigos. It too often appears that such psychological . . . weaknesses run rampant hereon and rough-shod all over lots of people routinely without the slightest caution, check, demerits being applied. And, sadly, many times, folks are quite right

SOME OF THE MODS ARE SOME OF THE WORST OFFENDERS.

And when such begin to ROUTINELY ASSAULT EVERY new story, OP . . . then I think it's time for some much more careful senior monitoring.

I realize no amount of mod ranks etc. will stop anything bad if the membership itself turns a blind eye. That's a challenge. The rank and file are . . .

1. often loathe to speak up sufficiently even when it's called for. Some just don't like to make waves and some just don't like to bother.

2. often too insecure about their perceptions to trust them even when they are spot on.

3. have seen too much evidence that their perspectives will be ignored, shot down, useless, counter productive AND get them a black badge of disfavor for ever daring to speak up at all.

I'm sure there are other factors but those are problematic enough. I think all those 3 factors are challenging to impact toward improvment. But who said all this would be easy. Goes with the territory. The effort must still be made. Persistent, lasting effort must still be made, imho.

I wonder . . . Springer . . . Could there be designated . . . . 3, 5 or even 7 senior super mods in a tiered sort of way . . .

not just mods who've been around a long time with lots of acclaim for their biases or some such . . .

but mods who are

1. HUMBLE, NOT ALL FUSSED UP OVER THEIR OWN EGOS AND WHO'S IS LONGER etc.

2. Who TRULY ARE FAIR-MINDED over a very wide range of issues, topics, values . . .

3. HAVE TO UNCOMMON GREAT DEGREES--A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE AND A SENSE OF HUMOR.

4. An above average capacity, set of skills at conceptualizing and sorting through very convoluted, complex interpersonal exchanges.

5. Capable of telling it like it is without ego-hooks being involved. . . . letting the chips fall where they will without a need to skewer the dagger in a little deeper for personal vendetta sorts of reasons.

6. Could communicate graciously where practical and at least with some detached non-personally hooked tones--a summary of what had been going on and how it was to be resolved.

IF some . . . . frankly . . . saintly sorts . . . . could be identified in a kind of tiered NOTIFY, APPEAL, CALL IN to a situation kind of set-up . . . it might shorten the time when such would be addressed and it would likely improve the respect for how complex messes were cleaned up; prevented from getting worse etc.

Even a panel of 3 such could be a big improvement, imho

[edit on 24/8/2007 by BO XIAN]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
well personally ive seen a few things that are typically taken as "evidence (not proof, they are different) of a hoax" that can have rational explainations.

1) the poster is new, has just registered, has no points, and it may in fact be their first post. this is generally seen as evidence of a hoax as the ats members dont know them and dont know if they are trust worth and that posting a grand story is an excuse to get the points up.

ok. but, what if they had a story to tell and searched the web for a forum in which to share their experience or had even tried other forums and got laughed away or banned or w/e...shouldnt we appreciate that they are sharing their story with us? hell, it may be true.

2) no pics or video. nothing concrete to offer as PROOF.

ok, who carrys a camera with them 24/7. sure a lot of ats folks do, but thats becase many of us EXPECT to see something sometime that will be ground breaking...but ats members are not the average joe's of society. we are, to put it bluntly, better than "normal" people


does not having photos invalidate a story? no, it just makes the narrative more important and makes the posters willingness to answer questions more important.

besides...sadly there are those among us who cry PHOTOSHOP to every single picture thats posted regardless of w/e. which is more difficult. exif data can be edited. not everyone uses digital and may use a scanner which wont list exif data for a camera anyway

3) "can you give me a link?"
does everything need a link? of the links provided how many of the sources are legit? cuz i could easily register a domain, create a bs site and link to it all day if you want...does that make it legit?

does not having links to other sites mean my story is bogus?

and i could go on.

now, i also believe that extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence but lets face it, if a story isnt good enough or the poster doesnt answer questions good enough they get crucified. if a story is TOO good and has TOO many details the poster gets crucified.

i think the bottom line is to be patient, give the poster a chance, ask the tough questions and expect answers to them but lets maintain our civililty in the process yeah?

how many hoaxes were proved simply cuz someone started screaming hoax right away vs how many were proved hoaxes by just doing the legwork and letting it play out?
of the ones deemed hoaxes cuz people started crying hoax and the poster just gave up, how many could have been legit?

lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater...but on the flip side, lets not have to endure another serpo anytime soon LOL.

peace ya'll and for the record i think as a group the members of ats do a fine job overall. lets just keep our heads.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
IN TRUE, GENUINE STORIES, THERE ARE VIRTUALLY ALWAYS INCONSITENCIES because we are human and remember things in a somewhat jumbled way according to all kinds of preconditioning experiences as well as idiosyncratic memory factors.

Yet, if we pounce on every microscopic shred of an inconsistency as though it were proof positive that the OP was a troll, stupid, lying, hoaxer, ignorant, not worth bothering with . . . beneath our contempt etc.


That's way people question statements and given 'evidence'. It can be incorrect or represent something other that what is originally believed. I don't mean the person should be treated harshly or called a liar but questioning the facts are part of the process.

I feel the mods do a very good job here 99% of the time. Sometimes they wait to make comments and assert their self but if they jump in constantly what would be said about that action. They are not limiting posters opinions and forcing the thread in a certain direction unduly. I see many threads where mods enter and law down the law. Mistakes are going to happen.

How many times does someone get a warning then question why. The same reason someone else did.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Fine, fine fine. I'll shut up. Still won't fix the core problem though


And Springer, thanks for answering my u2u. Oh, wait, yeah thats right, you didn't. Well, never mind. Good luck.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Couldn't have said it better myself. I just wish that people here could give the benefit of the doubt to new posters for more than 10 hours before starting an onslaught of "It's a hoax" posts begin. Yeah, a lot of them are going to be full of crap, but what if the next person who comes here and tries to tell us about their experience is the real deal? We'll never know if we automatically scream HOAX after a page and a half of speculation and nothing from the OP simply because they don't stare at their computer screen non-stop waiting to see if we have a question for them.

I never posted in TLH's thread, even though I was watching it, simply because there wasn't enough info from him yet and I had nothing to say to further the conversation. It was (and still is) mostly people talking about why they think it's a hoax. He wasn't even given 24 hours to respond before the cries of hoax began. What kind of message is that sending out to visitors to the site? If I were to stumble upon this site today for the first time and that thread was the first one I read, I'd be led to believe that this was not the place to try to share an experience if I wanted anyone to take me seriously and have the decency to give me a reasonable amount of time to respond to questions before declaring me a liar.

Should we believe every tale that is posted? Of course not. But lately the people on this site have become more and more hostile towards new posters. Not everyone has been here for over a year. Yeah, we've had a lot of hoaxes posted over the summer, but that's no reason to automatically assume that every new poster is here to trick us.

It's up to each individual member to police their own actions. It shouldn't be up to the mods and admin to go through every single post to make sure it doesn't violate the T&C. We all agreed to them or we wouldn't have an account. I don't see why they should be responsible for making us be civil to each other. It's really easy to be civil to other posters, even if you don't agree with what they have to say. Personally I don't think it's too much to ask.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Jenna]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I am a "newbie" with few points and expect to be more or less ignored because of this, however as I understand it the site owner is simply requesting that the members be courteous, correct?

And if I've read these pages correctly, some members find this request to be too extravagant.

Interesting.

Well, this is not a solution but rather a mind set that I have not seen addressed within these pages.

When you call someone a liar you place the burden of proof upon yourself. It is now your job to prove their claims false, and your claims true.

However, if you simply say something like "I am finding it very difficult to believe your claims" the burden of proof is still upon them. It is their job (if they are indeed interested in swaying your opinion) to offer more evidence.

Nothing wrong with saying "I don't believe you". Calling someone a liar though, well, some people consider those "fighting words".



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by daystrom
 


"Newbie" or not, your points are valid.

The trouble is, we have far too many pseudo-intellectual types who tend to get their rocks off by flaming others, and thereby letting their gross lack of maturity show.

Though I wholeheartedly agree with, and subscribe to, the Ideal represented by Springer's OP, I still must maintain that, though the OP alludes to the ideal situation, it is far from the demonstrated Reality in the majority of cases. There are too many for whom Skepticism has become a Religion, or rather a System of Disbelief, and it's doctrines and biases show.

I am going to say this for what it's worth as a precept. The accounts of an eye-witness to a rare event are irrefutable and are, in and of themselves, evidence that an event occurred as related. That being the case, quit looking for hard evidence, documentation, and photographs and otherwise asking for the impossible. Of course, when such is not forthcoming, the detractors conclude that the thread is a Hoax, and state so. Why? No, not because they presented evidence to the fact, but because the story ran counter to their Beliefs.

I have "heard" the comparison made often enough on ATS; that between the "Skeptics" and the "True Believers". Actually, they are one in the same--just opposed.

Think about it



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
and thereby letting their gross lack of maturity show.

Wrong. A gross lack of maturity is.....nanny nanny boo boo. Some people are acerbic, caustic, or curmudgeonly in there interactions with others.


the accounts of an eye-witness to a rare event are irrefutable and are, in and of themselves, evidence that an event occurred as related.


I can claim to be an eye-witness to any event...and you personally will accept it as irrefutable fact? Even in the case of psychotic hallucinations? How about a visitor to a foreign land, who describes an event with zero cultural understanding of its significance? You would consider their description to be an accurate account of the event?


No, not because they presented evidence to the fact, but because the story ran counter to their Beliefs.


Wrong. Not only is 'beliefs' not capitalized, but many of us are here exactly because our beliefs fall along the same lines as most of the other readers. From time to time, a story is related that when taken in its entirety, shouts at us...."made up!!!" A couple of small incongruities, slip in the timeline, or maybe a "drawing" supposedly created by a 7 yr old.....said drawing being badly out of scale for the typical 7 yr old's artistic endeavors.

My snap judgments in these cases haven't been wrong yet....take it or leave it......



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Mr. Penny, you missed a few parts of my post, but exhibited a fine example of exactly the kind of retorts and flamings I was referring to. I was, after all, expressing an opinion, and now, we also have yours.

To answer your question regarding eye-witness accounts, unfortunately, yes one does have to accept them until such time as one can prove otherwise. If one cannot accept that idea, then one can keep one's mouth shut and not post unless he can substantially refute what is being said. Unanswered threads tend to quickly die of suffocation up here--even good ones.

Anyway, Mr. Penny, thanks for the example!



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
If one cannot accept that idea, then one can keep one's mouth shut and not post unless he can substantially refute what is being said.


So I can assume that since you did not substantially refute what I said, you will shut your mouth and no longer post here?



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Gentlemen, please. Perhaps this is one of those occasions where something like "I'm having a hard time accepting your statements" should come into play.

"shut your mouth"? No matter what the context, those are very forceful words and they beg a confrontation. That type of attitude is a power struggle for dominance and offers little in the form of constructive criticism.

As I understand this thread, the OP (Springer, the owner of this site) simply requested that the members be courteous to each other. Some members in long standing with vast amounts of experience in spotting "hoaxes" are getting tired of being polite when they spot something which fits into the "hoax" category based upon their past experiences.

No one is questioning your experiences. Your observations are probably correct.

However, getting tired of being polite to the poster of yet another "fuzzy picture" or "crazy story" simply is not an option according to the site owners.

It should not take the site owners to remind us of that.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 



I never saw a u2u from you.


S...



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


You state that your "snap judgments haven't been wrong yet", OK that's great. That doesn't change anything though, the requirement is, as many have pointed out in this thread, that once you have made this judgment you either disregard the thread and move on OR enter into a COURTEOUS Q&A with the presenter without calling them a hoaxer until the entirety of their story has been presented and the evidence proving the hoax has come to light.

How hard is that to do?

Not very, if one has their emotions in control. Getting angry and lashing out at pixels on an internet forum does exactly nothing but make the flamer look like a hot head who can't control themselves or a snide jerk who simply doesn't care how (s)he treats their fellows.

Don't you think that as one of the owners of this site, and a guy works his tail off to make sure this site is here and as good as it can be, I get FRUSTRATED with the hoaxers?!


Rest ASSURED I do. But I also do my best to remain civil, polite and engage the hoaxer in a manner that will hopefully expose the truth (as in the Ghost Raven hoax) definitively or I simply ignore it all together and let go the way of "the dead thread" and fade into oblivion.

Citing Cuhail's brilliant post/example above, I am sad to say that I would bet the example scenario he used has happened in the recent past, but we'll never know, I can't stand the thought of it happening again.

Springer...




[edit on 8-28-2007 by Springer]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 



So I can assume that since you did not substantially refute what I said, you will shut your mouth and no longer post here?


Refute what you said? of course not; there is nothing to refute, and never was!
You see, Sir, one cannot refute someone's opinion, rather, one can only argue with an opinion.

As to shutting my mouth and not posting here--well--obviously not---but I appreciate the invitation!



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Why does this forum not have a 'Delete Post' button like so many other do?
Sometimes one posts and then later may wish to delete the post as they might think it inappropriate.

I saw one forum where you were able to delete your own post for around 15 minutes, after that it stayed.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I've been here for years but I don't post often.
Why? well if I don't have something wothwhile to contribute I keep my mouth shut.
Sure, these hoaxes peeve me like everybody else but what REALLY annoys me is that everybody and his dog has to jump on the bandwagon and comment some lame crap so that useless thread turns into 20 pages.
Let them die, starve them out.
Feeding just encourages them.
Heck, if I want points, the fastest way to do that these days is to post some lame hoax crap and thats just sad.
And now I'll go back to reading and not posting.
Please excuse my opinion, no offence intended for those that just can't help but post.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join