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.

 

Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

page: 11
100
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Well you guys sure have shown what is wrong in the 9/11 forum. Now knock it off.




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



Originally posted by intrepid
Well you guys sure have shown what is wrong in the 9/11 forum. Now knock it off.


So people can continue to state that other posters are lying without backing up their claims? In any case, you're a moderator, so I'll discontinue from responding to KJ or anyone else who's not a moderator on this subject in this thread until you or another moderator clarify if that's what you'd like.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I have a question about the 9/11 commission. It seems on one hand members of the commisision complained they were not given full access to properly conduct their investigation. While on the other hand, many people have accused the 911 commission of purposely not digging deep enough or asking the hard questions. It's all very confusing. Can anyone try and makes sense of this for me, was the 911 commission honestly trying to do a good job but was limited by lack of cooperation, or were they people who were put their to make sure they wouldn't dig to deep?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Just A Friendly Reminder

AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use apply in the 9/11 Conspiracies forum as they do everywhere else.

In particular, there appear to be some members who have difficulty with basic courtesy.

Let's please remember our manners and the rules governing this forum. Behavior that habitually violates them may result in temporary or permanent suspension of posting privileges.

Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


Read a bit of your thread Courtesy Is Mandatory. I really liked a part of your In The Heat Of Battle post:


Originally posted by Majic
Though passions are flaring over the ongoing violence in the Middle East and other hot topics, it's important to remember that mutual respect and tolerance of differing opinions is what sets us apart and makes our community so unique -- and discussion here so worthwhile.


A very good point. Here's to hoping that somewhere in the above thread, there's a section concerning not accusing others of being deceitful if one hasn't presented evidence that they are, in fact, being deceitful.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Please, read before you post.

This is a thread explaining policies related to the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, not a platform for airing petty squabbles.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by Majic
 


Read a bit of your thread Courtesy Is Mandatory. I really liked a part of your In The Heat Of Battle post:


Originally posted by Majic
Though passions are flaring over the ongoing violence in the Middle East and other hot topics, it's important to remember that mutual respect and tolerance of differing opinions is what sets us apart and makes our community so unique -- and discussion here so worthwhile.


A very good point. Here's to hoping that somewhere in the above thread, there's a section concerning not accusing others of being deceitful if one hasn't presented evidence that they are, in fact, being deceitful.


As long as mods are removing off topic posts, this one accuses me of making false accusations. Now if the complaint about false accusations is valid enough to stand, then does it not kill itself when it is in fact also a false accusation?



Mod note: Post was removed by, and now restored by Majic.

[edit on 12/18/2009 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Um...I think in your zeal to punish me, you forgot what the topic of the thread is. My last post was directly on topic in relation to the thread title as well as the OP. It would seem you are now stating this thread is closed?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

Nope, just asking that we please stay on topic.

The post I removed doesn't mention you at all -- unless you consider yourself to match the description provided.

My point is that this thread is not about you or anyone else in particular. It is a thread about policy, and one which happens to (unfortunately) highlight the kinds of problems both members and staff routinely face in this forum.

Please respect the intent of the topic, focus on that, take the drama down a notch or three and avoid the temptation to make this into something it is not.

That's all I'm asking.





Edit: To be abundantly clear, this is not a thread for sharing anecdotes, reporting individual problems (please use ALERT for those) or importing drama from other threads. The policy is stated, the point hopefully made, and posts that don't pertain directly to the topic will be subject to removal.

[edit on 12/18/2009 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


Mod note: You are clearly not getting it. This is not a matter for debate. We can discuss this via U2U if you like, but the derailment stops here. -- Majic


[edit on 12/18/2009 by Majic]

Mod edit: Do not modify posts removed or edited by moderators. We will discuss this via U2U. -- Majic

[edit on 12/18/2009 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


Majic, I admit I was unaware that this thread was only for discussing current policy and didn't actually include discussion of whether a new policy should be added or whether policy was being followed or not in specific instances. Nevertheless, when your fellow super moderator mentioned that we should "cut it out", I did, although I felt that he was cutting off an important discussion. Then you posted, and seemed to essentially be saying that there might have been something to what I was saying, and so you have my post immediately after yours, which I believe you did consider on topic (I see you haven't deleted it anyway). The thing is, you never did clarify whether or not it's ok to make accusations without providing evidence. And ofcourse KJ didn't feel the conversation should be over, so I went with it, thinking that perhaps you might have essentially overturned the previous super-mod's statement.

I've read the OP, and I'm well aware that it speaks of using the Alert button if someone is using insults, but it doesn't clarify what to do if someone is making an accusation without providing evidence for their claim. Could we -create- a thread that deals with such matters in a civil manner? I once essentially did this, but the entire thread, which had more than 70 posts and was growing, was deleted (I even wrote a complaint against the decision, no response was ever returned), so I'm leary of doing it again without approval from a moderator.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Damned If We Do, Damned If We Don't

What I'm hoping to get away from in this thread, and hopefully elsewhere, is the notion that calls for civility are somehow tantamount to saying "Post your personal gripes here!"

Hearkening back to the original post and topic of this thread, we find that we are asked to focus on civilized debate and discussion of important issues, and refrain from resorting to ad hominem attacks and other nonsense that detracts from topical discussion.

That's all.

It's not about "Jimmy said this" or "Johnny said that". You either agree with the idea of civil discussion or you don't, and threads like those serve no purpose other than to amplify drama and distract from discussion of the facts surrounding 9/11.

They are extraneous to the facts of 9/11 and have no place in this forum.

If you should see a post that violates this policy or the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use in general, you are welcome to ALERT it and let us know about it.

But perpetuating the problem, particularly in a thread calling attention to it, runs counter to the spirit with which this thread was authored, and to the purpose of this forum overall.

We have to start somewhere, and there is no more logical place to start than with posts and members who insist on undermining what the 9/11 Conspiracies forum and ATS as a whole stand for.

It ain't rocket science, and I hope you'll work with us here.

Just sayin'



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 



Originally posted by Majic
Damned If We Do, Damned If We Don't

What I'm hoping to get away from in this thread, and hopefully elsewhere, is the notion that calls for civility are somehow tantamount to saying "Post your personal gripes here!"


I see.


Originally posted by Majic
Hearkening back to the original post and topic of this thread, we find that we are asked to focus on civilized debate and discussion of important issues, and refrain from resorting to ad hominem attacks and other nonsense that detracts from topical discussion.

That's all.


What I'm trying to get clarification on is, does accusing someone of being deceptive, whether true or not, constitute an ad hominem attack?

See, for me, I think it should be fine to say someone is deceptive -if- one provides evidence that this is the case. If one doesn't, however, I don't think that it should be allowed. There are also different ways to point something out like this, though. One of them might be to use the alert button, the other is to make the claim in the thread itself.


Originally posted by Majic
It's not about "Jimmy said this" or "Johnny said that".


What a person says can be important, if they are saying something with the intent to deceive.



Originally posted by Majic
They are extraneous to the facts of 9/11 and have no place in this forum.

If you should see a post that violates this policy or the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use in general, you are welcome to ALERT it and let us know about it.


I took a look at it. The closest I could find to what I'm trying to get at was this post:


1k.) [HOAX]: In the event you post more than three items that are later determined to be of an obviously hoax, fraudulent, or faked nature, your account may be terminated without warning.


But what if you're doing the reporting- how do you go about it?

[edit on 18-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Argument Against The Man


Originally posted by scott3x
What I'm trying to get clarification on is, does accusing someone of being deceptive, whether true or not, constitute an ad hominem attack?

If you are attacking the person, then by definition, yes. Knowing what a person is actually thinking requires powers that transcend the discussion board format.

So rather than attempt mind reading, simply presenting the facts is a better strategy and more compatible with topical discussion.


Originally posted by scott3x
See, for me, I think it should be fine to say someone is deceptive -if- one provides evidence that this is the case. If one doesn't, however, I don't think that it should be allowed. There are also different ways to point something out like this, though. One of them might be to use the alert button, the other is to make the claim in the thread itself.

The ALERT button is for reporting violations of the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use. Making mistakes or being wrong are not violations.

So the best bet is always to refute dubious claims with facts. If you should suspect someone of seeking to deliberately disrupt topical discussion, please let us know.


Originally posted by scott3x
But what if you're doing the reporting- how do you go about it?

If you're referring to reporting T&C violations, simply ALERTing the offending post and explaining the problem honestly should suffice.

If the subject is what amounts to a broad-based attack against a person, whether an ATSer or someone else, that's not what our forums are for:


Originally posted by SimonGray
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

ATS is for Denying Ignorance by discussing facts.

Discussions aimed at something else are better suited for other venues.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 



Originally posted by Majic
Argument Against The Man


Originally posted by scott3x
What I'm trying to get clarification on is, does accusing someone of being deceptive, whether true or not, constitute an ad hominem attack?


If you are attacking the person, then by definition, yes. Knowing what a person is actually thinking requires powers that transcend the discussion board format.


It could be argued that they could reveal it in some way by what they say. I think that was KJ's argument, although I never saw evidence for it myself.


Originally posted by scott3x
So rather than attempt mind reading, simply presenting the facts is a better strategy and more compatible with topical discussion.


Not sure what you mean here. Simply presenting the facts that someone is deceiving and letting others draw conclusions as to what they imply?



Originally posted by Majic

Originally posted by scott3x
See, for me, I think it should be fine to say someone is deceptive -if- one provides evidence that this is the case. If one doesn't, however, I don't think that it should be allowed. There are also different ways to point something out like this, though. One of them might be to use the alert button, the other is to make the claim in the thread itself.


The ALERT button is for reporting violations of the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use. Making mistakes or being wrong are not violations.


I agree wholeheartedly there. It's these claims of deception that were the issue.


Originally posted by Majic
So the best bet is always to refute dubious claims with facts. If you should suspect someone of seeking to deliberately disrupt topical discussion, please let us know.


This might have been KJ's best argument, but honestly.. I just didn't see his case.


Originally posted by Majic

Originally posted by scott3x
But what if you're doing the reporting- how do you go about it?


If you're referring to reporting T&C violations, simply ALERTing the offending post and explaining the problem honestly should suffice.


Alright, I think it's settled then. If KJ had evidence that someone was deceiving and by doing so, was disrupting topical discussion, he should have done an Alert. Similarly, if I felt that KJ was disrupting topical discussion, I should have done an Alert on him. That about right?


Originally posted by Majic
If the subject is what amounts to a broad-based attack against a person, whether an ATSer or someone else, that's not what our forums are for:


Originally posted by SimonGray
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


ATS is for Denying Ignorance by discussing facts.

Discussions aimed at something else are better suited for other venues.


Sounds good.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


I really love watching scott spend an entire week talking about how someone else is disrupting the conversation here. I guess 9/11 has gotten so boring to discuss, we not spend weeks at a time complaining about how other people choose to spend their time because some others feel it is a waste of their time. LOL. This thread is hillarious. Can we spend a few more pages on a few more threads discussing one persons feeling so supperior that they have appointed themself judge of what is and is not good use of time on the boards even if it means stretching that time out to ten times as long as the original conflict. Does anyone understand irony anymore?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


KJ wasn't the only one who accused someone else of lying. I actually brought up 2 other people in this very thread who did the same thing, from opposing sides of the ideological divide. What I'm trying to get clarification on was what one should do, both if a person thinks someone else is lying, as well as if one believes that someone's accusing someone else of lying is unjustified. It seems I now have my answer:

If either event is seen by the person concerned as disrupting the thread, one should alert the moderation team. All I'd like is a confirmation at this point.



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join