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

page: 19
100
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
This is from someone who has no belief on 9/11, as belief is an antithesis to a philosopher.

So, it seems that there is unwarranted hatred here between Truthers and OS'ers. I don't understand why. Truthers, in general, don't hate OSers, but OSers sure do hate truthers. This isn't just on ATS, either. It is the Internet at large, almost every forum out there.

Why? Why is this so? As someone without belief, when i weigh the merit of the argument, all the ad hominems make OSers look like they are lying to either the audience or themselves. I would assume that they lie to themselves because of a delicate psyche that cannot easily handle the possibility that their reality is a sham.

Anywhere it is discussed, you have to read through 3 pages of ad hominem, vile, hateful speech to possibly find 1 piece of decent information. Often, the only information is in an OP, with nothing but hateful volleys shared between morons who cannot find civility for the sake of actual truth, be it the truthers or OS version.

Were I to spend more time in the 9/11 forums, i likely would have a deep dislike for most members there. People that I otherwise would think sane based on participation elsewhere.

It would be nice if all of you, both sides, would learn to act like intelligent adults. There is no reason for the hate here. Absolutely none.




posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Harley shirt guy?


Is this guy fair game?




For the most part, the new level of discourteous activity is focused on an amazing amount of ad hominen personality attacks directed toward ATS Members, high-profile 9/11 "Truth" personalities, high-profile 9/11 "Debunker" personalities, and even non-public figures those who have been in the mainstream news as reported witnesses the events on 9/11/2001. This type of activity in the 9/11 Forum on AboveTopSecret.com stops now.



Alright. We seem to be having a communication issue. I'll be specific.


Understood about fellow ATS'ers. You're dead on correct with that.

"High profile" personalities? From EITHER SIDE?

If your standing in a freeway, your gonna get hit. These guys are in the media/highway. They are legit targets.




Beginning at the time of this announcement, if your post contains a personality attack against anyone, no matter if your target is an ATS member or not, within the 9/11 Forum, it will be removed and replaced with this graphic:




To be clear, "public figures" such as politicians and policy-makers with a connection to these issues/events are not considered to fall under these new guidelines. Their pre-existing public exposure places them in a position to anticipate scrutiny.


This is what I dont understand. It seems that above its a "no go" to call out a "high profile" individual and then its a "go". So are media people off limits? Harley shirt guy?

If media/politician/whoever named "x" is an obvious liar for instance, and you call them on it with evidence, I wouldnt consider that ad hominem. You have evidence of fact.

Granted that this is to be refrained from doing toward other ATS members (or at least softened to a "your very much mistaken and this is why").

I agree ENTIRELY with keeping things civil. In a "face to face" conversation, most of the rudeness wouldnt happen (some of the radicals would either way). I've had plenty of conversations with folks that I disagreed with. Some I sort of like in a masochistic way I guess. I've also been bludgeoned as a "hate monger", "nazi", and other lovely titles. When I've been wrong or misunderstood someone, I've also given my "mea culpa" and asked forgiveness.

Now.

I've shown my concerns. I've posted what seemed to be a conflict (to me).

I'm not being obtuse. I'm not being an ass. I'm a man that has been around the block enough to know he doesnt tolerate BS and fools lightly (and you dont either).

I hope this clarifies my question. I see a conflict in these things.

PS. I expect an apology for the shabby treatment....ESPECIALLY with your being the top mod.

edit on 3/9/11 by felonius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by ATH911
Do you know why? Because if ATS took care of all the problem members in the 9/11 section, most of the skeptics would be gone.

As I've said many, many times -- and apparently need to keep typing it until my fingers bleed -- the majority of the problems in the 9/11 forum originate with "Truthers" and overly-aggressive conspiracy proponents.

The worst, most high-profile, offenders requiring account termination have been "personalities" in various factions of "Truth" movements.


I need to mention it seems whatever the subject, the so-called “Truthers” are anything but those whose “truth” is their own agenda, and a bias that reeks of using “the truth label” as nothing more then a cheap (hey, no need for ones own web site, though god knows there is a huge number of sites, and talk radio, more to the extreme now then ever before) Then you have the need to promote a political agenda under the pathetic guise of “reporting” the news. While the left is most certainly guilty of this, the right wingers have (at least it seems to me) become so vicious and “agenda driven” I can’t stand to watch them. Bad for my blood pressure. Pity. Some on a certain network (think furry animal name..., small scavenger, no not raccoon) are fair commentators but seem hell bent on following the party line. As someone who tries (really I do! ) to get as many view points as possible, its enough to put a “sanity block” on certain network programs (think parental block for old people).



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by felonius
I want to know what all the parameters are.

The parameters have been made crystal clear. If you don't understand it, then one of the following is happening:
(1) your reading comprehension is lacking
(2) you refuse what you read
(3) you're trying to stir the pot for your own entertainment

There's no other explanation.


Well, I must say, your reactivity on this whole topic does seem rather disturbing to me. And considering I know what I said in the post of mine that was pulled and labeled "9-11 madness", it does kinda get me wondering what all those other posts said, that were pulled with that label.

In that post, yah, I admit I pointed out what to me is someone who time after time behaves predictably in response to those who post against the OS side of things, probably with the implication that most likely he was being paid to be there. And I wonder why we are 'forbidden' to express that kind of opinion here, anyway?? It is, after all, just an opinion.

And after 10 years of dealing with anti-conspiracy types across 4 different forums about numerous 'alternate' type subjects which frequently get attacked as quackery and so on, I've come to notice a very similar pattern of behavior from certain types of 'debunkers' aka party liners who I've come to believe are in fact paid stoogies of the NWO bunch, although they may not work for a company called that.

First they try to discredit your information. Failing that, they try to discredit you as being a loony tunes conspiracy nut job. If that doesn't work, then comes the insults and name calling and belittlement techniques. And they never let up.

They keep going on and on as long as you do and demanding 'proof' but never give any of their own other than the few sources that support the (usually full of BS) official side of things. Or as I pointed out with this poster, they blab a bunch of psycho 'intelligent' gobbledygook and then say, "no they didn't" "no it doesn't" etc. like that somehow proves what they're saying is right.

So I pointed that he was displaying said behavior and asked him to give ME some other 'proof' besides what I consider to be the shoddy 'evidence' that is used to support the OS.

He never answers and all of a sudden you're there, being all angry and annoyed. And this post of mine gets tagged as '9-11 madness'. So what was the madness?

Shouldn't it have been I was too mean to that poor poster and a T&C violation. After all his babble as about as relevant as saying "My hat is two sharks: Your argument is invalid" but I don't believe I actually called him any names. Might have said he was acting like a shill (but since it is deleted I can't check, eh?) So please, what exactly was the madness? My asking him to provide more proof than what the OS uses? Or?

You know, oddly enough no one has ever considered me a shill. I wonder, does anyone think I am one (and for who??) since I tend to point out when I feel as if I'm being attacked by one, since that was noted as one of the things 'shills' tend to do (although not that much in my experience across the years).

Of course you can always ban me for daring to question you. I expect you will consider it, eh?

P.S. Huh. Kinda get the feeling everyone's holding their breath....
edit on 3-9-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by ATH911
Do you know why? Because if ATS took care of all the problem members in the 9/11 section, most of the skeptics would be gone.

As I've said many, many times -- and apparently need to keep typing it until my fingers bleed -- the majority of the problems in the 9/11 forum originate with "Truthers" and overly-aggressive conspiracy proponents.

The worst, most high-profile, offenders requiring account termination have been "personalities" in various factions of "Truth" movements.
someone should look into descrimination laws on internet about ceos and owners descriminating against a single group, "truthers". You should have been more courteous. But you dont care about the real content OSing SO. I wished you luck but now I wish ur demise. Im sure you will with that attitude. Once again, you owe all your money and business to these socalled horrible pathetic "truthers". Never forget ats atrocities



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


You know, it could be good to read up on your gobbledygook. Then you could call out people mis-using it.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


You know, it could be good to read up on your gobbledygook. Then you could call out people mis-using it.

Calling people out seems to get labeled and edited, eh? Wouldn't do much good, from what I'm seeing.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Consider the the entire forum ON NOTICE!

Closing the 9/11 forum on the internet's largest conspiracy website would probably not be the best idea. There are still people learning about 9/11 and there is alot of information here for them to learn about.

There are bad apples on both sides. Whether those bad apples are doing it on purpose or not, could be a conspiracy in and of itself. There has been a concerted effort to make 9/11 "truthers" look like "nutjobs"; ridiculous; uncredible.

If my opinion matters at all, what needs to be done is a zero-tolerance policy. You get one warning, next time is an automatic account ban. Every time, no leniency. There seems to not be enough moderation in a couple forums, including the 9/11 and Alien forums. In the past, there has been a crack-down in the 9/11 forum. It lasts a week or two, then it goes back to the way it was because of lack of moderation in this forum.

So, instead of potentially shutting this particular forum down, start banning the accounts of the offenders. If people on either side can't debate in an adult manner, get them out of here. There are plenty of people that do want to debate civilly.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonriderGal

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


You know, it could be good to read up on your gobbledygook. Then you could call out people mis-using it.

Calling people out seems to get labeled and edited, eh? Wouldn't do much good, from what I'm seeing.


In those cases, try to use quotes when you are responding. If they try to change their data, then you'll have proof of foul-play. There will, of course, be no need to use name-calling or anything, but it is necessary to put a stop to tangents and make people return to reasonable, fact-based discussion.

It is kind of like when people tell me that a building collapsing into its footprint is proof of planned demo. I try to figure out how this is so. I Google it, and look up collapses from fire and collapses from structural integrity failure. They tend to either have part of the building collapse or all of it, but in every case, the collapsing goes downward. I try to point this out, but it tends to be ignored, and I wonder why.

But yeah, all I'm looking for is civility and decorum without the taste of angry mob. The mods do a good job of keeping it fairly under control, but it is a difficult job to do 24/7 with no pay. It's understandable that they might get tired of it eventually.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I think the point is to get people to regulate themselves. What kind of place will it be if every person with a temper got banned? I think I've seen almost every member here lose it every now and then, but usually they pick themselves back up and return to being civil.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
As I've said many, many times -- and apparently need to keep typing it until my fingers bleed -- the majority of the problems in the 9/11 forum originate with "Truthers" and overly-aggressive conspiracy proponents.

The worst, most high-profile, offenders requiring account termination have been "personalities" in various factions of "Truth" movements.

I just want to make something perfectly clear on the above point. There are no "factions" within the 9/11 truth movement. There is only one 9/11 truth movement.

Those that peddle the "cgi/tv fakery theory", "no planes at the WTC theory", "DEW/Energy Weapons theory", are not part of the 9/11 truth movement, and should not be considered "truthers" of any kind. That makes the rest of us 9/11 researchers in the 9/11 truth movement look even worse.

All of the above have been banned from the 9/11 truth movement and should not ever be associated with the 9/11 truth movement. The above is outlined in my thread:

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I think the point is to get people to regulate themselves. What kind of place will it be if every person with a temper got banned? I think I've seen almost every member here lose it every now and then, but usually they pick themselves back up and return to being civil.

Unfortunately, there are too many people that don't have the will-power or restraint to regulate themselves. Sometimes this is too much to ask of some people. A little more moderation and a tightening of the warning system will make people think twice about posting something uncivil if they want to keep being a member of ATS.

My opinion, of course.


edit on 3-9-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by felonius
I want to know what all the parameters are.

The parameters have been made crystal clear. If you don't understand it, then one of the following is happening:
(1) your reading comprehension is lacking
(2) you refuse what you read
(3) you're trying to stir the pot for your own entertainment

There's no other explanation.


Ouch.

It seems that you need to book a little "fun in the sun" time.


It may be the long office hours



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I just want to make something perfectly clear on the above point. There are no "factions" within the 9/11 truth movement. There is only one 9/11 truth movement.

Those that peddle the "cgi/tv fakery theory", "no planes at the WTC theory", "DEW/Energy Weapons theory", are not part of the 9/11 truth movement, and should not be considered "truthers" of any kind.


That is where you are incorrect, they ARE part of the "truth" movement. You do not get to say what conspiracy theories you accept in the "truth" movement, they are all part of that movement. Who gets to decide that conspiracy theories like explosives being used, or thermite is ok to be part of the truth movement, but equally silly conspiracy tyeories like mini nukes are not?


That makes the rest of us 9/11 researchers in the 9/11 truth movement look even worse.


Do you really think that people claiming explosives were used are better than those claiming cgi was used?


All of the above have been banned from the 9/11 truth movement


Who banned them? Was a meeting held, you showed your membership card of the "truth" movement then a vote was taken?


and should not ever be associated with the 9/11 truth movement


But they are, as you do not get to decide which conspiracy theory is acceptable.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by spav5
 


It meant you don't need a degree to be able to be civil, come on mate the logic wasn't that hard to follow. But I did read your post wrong, as you did mine, so the point is moot.
edit on 3/9/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)


I didn't read your post wrong. One doesn't need a degree to know how to do ANYTHING. So no, I don't follow your logic.

Thanks for rereading my post for further clarification.

I will keep this post short too, so that you may understand. See I can do that too..talking out both sides of my mouth.

No ill will.

Peace



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I think the whole point of this is that SO is wanting to prevent the Truthers from being able to discuss their theories and be bashed for it by OSers. There is no discrimination against Truthers, despite his own personal beliefs. He is actually providing an umbrella of protection (or trying to, if you guys would check your emotions).

Some people...
edit on 3-9-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by DragonriderGal

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


You know, it could be good to read up on your gobbledygook. Then you could call out people mis-using it.

Calling people out seems to get labeled and edited, eh? Wouldn't do much good, from what I'm seeing.


In those cases, try to use quotes when you are responding. If they try to change their data, then you'll have proof of foul-play. There will, of course, be no need to use name-calling or anything, but it is necessary to put a stop to tangents and make people return to reasonable, fact-based discussion.

It is kind of like when people tell me that a building collapsing into its footprint is proof of planned demo. I try to figure out how this is so. I Google it, and look up collapses from fire and collapses from structural integrity failure. They tend to either have part of the building collapse or all of it, but in every case, the collapsing goes downward. I try to point this out, but it tends to be ignored, and I wonder why.

But yeah, all I'm looking for is civility and decorum without the taste of angry mob. The mods do a good job of keeping it fairly under control, but it is a difficult job to do 24/7 with no pay. It's understandable that they might get tired of it eventually.


I always quote those I am responding to. I hate it when someone just post something cryptic and I can't figure out who it's meant for.

And well, what I've found when googling collapsing buildings were a number of sites that said that fire hasn't ever made a building collapse completely and neatly into it's own footprint except on 9-11. And that the only building collapses on record that do that are planned demolitions. Not even earthquakes can bring them straight down, although they can collapse them. Funny how we got such differing results, eh? So I'm guessing it is all in what you google, how you google it, and then how you interpret the information you receive.

And sometimes people just get over reactive, both in their responses and in what seems to 'insult' them. Sometimes I may state an opinion about someone's behavior and they act like I called them some horrible name. So some of it is playing, I think, to try to win sympathy from other readers. But hey, that too, is just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 





Those who post in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories and related speculation who cast aspersions on those who don't believe their theories and toss around insulting names (like "shill") are doing more to force ATS staff to reconsider the 9/11 forum than anyone who prefers the "official story."


I very rarely post in the 9/11 forums, but could I just ask........why is the term "shill" considered to be so insulting in this particular forum, but is never frowned upon in other forums?

I see that term banded around, and aimed at a fair number of members in quite a few of ATS's other forums.

Is there any particular reason why being labelled a "shill" here is more insulting than being named the same in say, the Aliens and UFO's forum?



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonriderGal
fire hasn't ever made a building collapse completely and neatly into it's own footprint except on 9-11. And that the only building collapses on record that do that are planned demolitions. Not even earthquakes can bring them straight down


how many other 100 story plus buildings have been hit by a high speed heavy jet airliner? It seems that when a very tall building is hit by a jet airliner they fall down. So far we have 100% confirmation of that!

The WTC buildings did NOT fall into their own footprint - just look at the damage they caused to surrounding buildings.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by DragonriderGal
fire hasn't ever made a building collapse completely and neatly into it's own footprint except on 9-11. And that the only building collapses on record that do that are planned demolitions. Not even earthquakes can bring them straight down


how many other 100 story plus buildings have been hit by a high speed heavy jet airliner? It seems that when a very tall building is hit by a jet airliner they fall down. So far we have 100% confirmation of that!

The WTC buildings did NOT fall into their own footprint - just look at the damage they caused to surrounding buildings.


*sigh* All i said was that when *I* googled collapsing buildings, that is what I found. What have you found when YOU google collapsing buildings?





top topics
 
100
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join