It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:24 AM
Reading some of the James Casbolt threads again, I ended up on this page

In the final paragraph, they talk about ATS along with some other sites and say

'Which tells us that these sites, whatever their webmasters might profess to be doing – seeking or spreading the truth, resisting the New World Order – are simply not serious.'

I think ATS mods/admins should ask for a correction/retraction of this in relation to ATS, on two points

1) ATS is a discussion board, therefore I feel the admins/mods jobs should be to sit on the fence (for the most part) and just make sure the users discussions are able to take place in a good atmosphere, not dictate to us what the 'truth' is. In their work on keeping the site running in a way that we can all enjoy it I feel they are very serious.

2) If they'd bothered to look at the actual topics about Casbolt they would have found the users are very serious and put a lot of work in. I would argue that the users here put in much more work than the writer of that article did, doing research in order to debunk Casbolts images, showing that they are of polish models, not nordic aliens, and public train stations, not DUMBs.

I think in forteantimes article they treat ATS unfairly.

Do people agree with my comments here? And if so should a mod/admin ask them to make a correction to this article?

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:40 AM

Originally posted by bobafett
1) ATS is a discussion board, therefore I feel the admins/mods jobs should be to sit on the fence (for the most part) and just make sure the users discussions are able to take place in a good atmosphere, not dictate to us what the 'truth' is. In their work on keeping the site running in a way that we can all enjoy it I feel they are very serious.

With the exception of Simon, we were all once members. None of us came to ATS as a staff member, or with the intentions of moderating this board. We came here as a member, just like everyone else. At some point in time, the Administration asked us to help out with moderating the board. Nowhere along the lines did it stipulate that staff had to stop being a member, or stop having an opinion.

We are members, we have opinions, and we are permitted to express them.

But if I am in a thread expressing my opinion, I am not involved as a staff member. The two are tough to separate for members, and I'm sure this is an issue that will always exist. But staff members are permitted to express their views. If I post an opinion, and a member goes off and verbally attacks me. I assure you that it would not be me taking punitive measures towards the member. If I engage as a member, I take the Moderator cap off.

The two do exist, but they do not exist concurrently. Staff members never moderate threads that they are participating in.

This perception that the opinions of staff goes, is baseless. The staff of ATS have varying opinions. 9/11, politics, paranormal activity, religion, etc., are all issues that are well represented on the ATS staff. If one staff member speaks clearly on one issue, I can assure you that there is another staff member who feels the complete opposite.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:52 AM
I doubt that any good could be served by contacting these people. They do and say what they want to, on their own site. The fact that ATS is mentioned, in a bad light, strikes me as just sour grapes.

I was attacked in another forum over my last ATS Premium article, the one on 9/11, which came out a couple or three weeks back. One of the Amigos brought it to my attention and asked if I was going to respond there. I chose not to, as I felt that if they wanted to argue for the official viewpoint, using my material put out on this site, then they could damn well come over here and register.

The point is, I don't think going outside the site and defending a position taken here, on any subject, is worth the effort. Just because they take exception with what is said here, we don't need to defend freedom of expression, just exercise it.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by NGC2736]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:49 PM
If you go responding to every little bit of critical information against you or gossip about you, prepare to waste the better amount of a lifetime doing so.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by chissler

Thanks for giving your views on it. I can understand that, the moderators were/are users too, have opinions too, and want to talk about the topics. I feel though, that when a moderator makes a personal post, because it says 'moderator' next to their name, that could give the impression (rightly or wrongly, and particularly to outsiders) that what they are saying is a statement on behalf of the site. I would probably prefer it if moderators had a seperate account for when they want to get involved in a discussion, or post their personal opinions on a subject.

I guess I agree also that contacting everybody who says anything negative about ATS would end up taking a lot of time, and might not accomplish much.

I think I just got heated up by seeing a site that is quite established essentially calling a site I really respect a joke. Really I think if they want to go that route, they should be calling the users a joke, and making the distinction from old style sites that just publish articles by a few select people where it's all about editorial control, to a site like this where it is mostly about user content.

Perhaps also, as a fairly new user I just don't understand the philosophy of ATS properly yet.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:19 PM

Sticks and stones may break my bones.. but words will never hurt me

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:55 PM
I agree with them. Other than some special guests, or special reports at ATS, and a few (very few) who post substantive links, most of the posts are by people with only a passing interest in or knowledge of the field they are posting about. I can probably count on the fingers of both hands all of the threads I've seen in 3 years containing original research and verifyable claims. Several of them were authored by me, at that.

The largest part of the growing problem, in my opinion, is the ever-declining quality of posters. I see a lowering average age, and thus a shrinking knowledge base.

I'm not saying this to anger people, I was thinking about starting a thread on the issue myself, but have been stuck with how to keep it from becoming a drama fest.

As an immediate example, there's a currrent thread called "is christianity dying." I posted about 3 times on page 9. The first couple of posts contain links to other articles (admittedly in wikipedia), and discuss numbers and demographics. But look at the other posters. Name-callers (violating T&C, at that) both pro and con.

It's like trying to hold a meaningful conversation in the parking lot of a sports bar.

And, not to shock anyone, but wikipedia and rense are not considered "scholarly sources."

. . . .But then, neither is ATS.


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

which is connected to attention-span. who´s willing to dedicate himself to a subject offered deeply and with commitment and with viewing all pros and cons? most are in for the entertainment or to seek validation.

One comment on fortean times: They are great. And I am certain the opinion of one writer doesnt reflect the opinion of fortean times as a whole. I am aware of plenty of forteantimes items that later appeared on ATS and some ATS items that appeared in fortean times. This thread is a non-topic.

new topics

top topics


log in