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

Just recently a newer member called ATS members "shills" because we disagreed with a video he posted in the 9/11 forum.I believe he wanted that video to be proof of a CD so bad ,it ticked him off when members here disagreed with what he claimed was in the video.
I can't believe some folks get that agitated when some one else doesn't agree with their opinions when it comes to the 9/11 topic.Everybody is different in their beliefs and opinions ,and I for one respect that.So I applaud the new "strict policy".Hopefully now some of the members that gave up on the 9/11 forum will return,cause I miss their views and opinions on the subject of 9/11.

So I would imagine using sarcasm towards another member would be deemed a personal attack and inappropriate right?

If so, this should be called the 911 "no fun" Conspiracy Theory Forum.

Even though I do agree(somewhat) with the new restrictions, I just feel that they might take all the personality out of this forum. I mean come on, what happened to three strikes and your out for god's sake?? You guys are extremely harsh with that 2 strike rule.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

---

My wi-fi is being VERY sketchy. I'll take a look tomorrow and offer my 2 pennies okay amigo?





Jasn

I value the creation of this thread, under the conditions that have been established.

I'm not terribly conversant in Latin...but I see two words there, one is 'argue' and the other is 'truth'.

'ad hominem' is a phrase I've seen before...hey, I'm winging it here!...

'homo' is man...or single...so, is "argumentum ad hominem veritas" possibly translated as "No single argument is truth"???

Really, I tried this on my own, no help from Google...just thought it would be fun...

Sheesh...oops, off thread....sorry. Or is it? The heading was 'Dealing with 9/11 Madness'. Here's my question....WHY is there any 9/11 'Madness' to deal with? Is the 'Madness' referring to Muslim extremism, or to 9/11 'inside job' conspiracy theories, or to something else?

Was the 9/11 attack just a concerted, co-ordinated attack, ala the USS Cole? Or, was it somehow an orchestrated event envisioned and carried out by members of the current US Administration (or shadow government, if you will)??

So...let's decide......"Inside Job" or "Act of Terrorism"

That, after all, is the question here. The question of 'Madness' can be decided later.....

Let's try to stick with the topic of the new 9/11 forum policy and leave other 9/11 topics for other threads (there's still plenty of room out there).

Also, as some earlier examples illustrate, let's please remember that this thread is itself subject to the new policy.

I think the pictures that you replace the posts with are a little over the top, but I guess you gotta do what you gotta do...

I have some sympathy here with Craig's position. This is predominantly a conspiracy forum and much of what we write about is unsubstantiated by its very nature.

I appreciate there are going to be grey areas and I certainly welcome the move as far as the exchanges between ATS members goes, but I would hope sufficient lattitude will be given and efforts made to distinguish between personal attacks and investigative work product.

Interesting developement SO, I applaud and boo at the same time! Some posts are quite simply attacks from one poster to another, these should be dealt with. However sarcasm does have a place in these discussions at times don't you think?

Also I've noticed an NBA style application of the "rules" here at ATS, meaning those with long histories here are given a longer leash when it comes to infractions. I don't nessasarily disagree with this but it is apparent at times. Will the new rules also be meted out in this fashion?

I have a question:

If I say, "John Kerry is a member of 'Skull & Bones'". Will I be tasered....err, I mean warned and/or post banned?

He Got Game


Enforcement of the T&C is indeed discretionary and may seem uneven to the casual observer.

However, though individual styles vary, there is a rationale behind all staff action.

New members usually get some slack because they may honestly not know they're doing something wrong. We try to bring them up to speed as painlessly as possible, and most folks respond favorably to that approach.

New members who start off spouting obscenities, posting spam and picking fights with mods, on the other hand, usually don't last more than a few days or weeks at the most.

Established members who have a track record of contributing good posts also get some slack. We all have bad days now and then, and if an otherwise good member has a Maalox moment now and then, we usually try to resolve the situation as peacefully as we can.

Then there are members who intentionally test the limits and try to get away with things to see if we're watching. They're less interested in discussing the topics than stirring up drama, care more about scoring points than denying ignorance and are always the first to throw tantrums over any perceived sleight.

And they waste an inordinate amount of staff time.

After a dubious career of racking up fouls and arguing with the refs, they are eventually expelled from the game.

It all comes down to respect for the sport.

I just have one question really about this policy, why isn't this being applied across the board, to all the forums?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, I swear the next time somebody calls me a truther I think I'm going to puke, but all this extra scrutiny on this one forum seems a bit contrived honestly when one sees the same type of behavior carried out on all the forums. Look at some of the awful things that are said about Johnlear, it's acceptable on those, but not the 9-11 forum? Maybe it's just me, but something about that stinks.

I agree with the strict poilcy being brought upon by those that cant follow some simple guidelines of common sense if you don't agree with some one's opinion why would you bend your self up so much and attack them in ways that are with may be rude violent or just plan Malicious ..


Tho i don't see why we just don't drop it.. It was years ago and its over with..

Just my two cents in the mater keep up the good work Gm's

Si senior.

Gracias.

Yes you get my point.

Thanks for speaking out.

That is correct.

Because I posted the sourced connection of McGraw with Opus Dei the day before they issued the new rule it has been allowed to remain.

If I posted the same important information today it would be censored and I would get a warn.

Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't.

The atmosphere of personality attack has been exceptionally heavy in the 9/11 forum, and in fact, the entire truther-debunker debate across a broad spectrum of sites has devolved into unsavory personality attacks that rarely, if ever, touch on any issues. This is AboveTopSecret.com's stand... we don't want that here.

There can be value, within the context of a critical analysis of conspiracy theory speculation, in the sober examination of the motivations behind various individuals pushing one theory or another. And this is so very true in the "truth movement circles" as entire profit centers seem to be springing up around the "inside job." Now, in this 9/11 forum, you're not prevented from such an examinations, you're simply going to have to work harder, provide factual information to support your claim, and do so in a more scholarly way if you want to review personal motivations.

Perhaps we should clarify something here that I think Bill and the rest of ATS staff is trying to make clear in personal attacks.

Bill, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the gestation of this ruling has come due to personal attacks from one poster to another. In short, one person expresses and opinion or personal theory and another poster attempts to shoot that person down by calling him/her an idiot, or liberal, or stupid or something base along those lines.

I never got the impression that we, as contributors, are supposed to curtail our assessment of public figures or personalities who figure prominently into the conspiracy mythos, as one poster seems to fear may be happening. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I would think that ATS could safely rely upon the long-standing law established by the Supreme Court that public figures have extremely limited access to recourse from slander/defamation. And they have absolutely no recourse from criticism, as is healthy in a democracy.

I think the application of these harsher penalities will, in the end, filter out those who simply troll on the 9/11 forum or have no real imput into a debate other than to call another poster names.

Where I think ATS needs to tred a fine line and be careful not to become overbearing is in the criticisms of those public personalities who are members and contributors to this site. While most members treat such celebrities with the upmost respect, they at times profess or say something to their belief that leaves them open to examination or criticism. Be careful not to simply shoot the messanger.

I can totally agree with this. I think ATS is one of the (if not the) best discussion sites going.

Of course there are probably a lot more but not with as many and divergent members.

The Stand


Considering how many members have told us they've been driven from the 9/11 Conspiracies forum by the loathsome behavior of an obnoxious minority, I know this is the right stand to take.

Especially since I'm one of those members myself.

reply to post by Majic

---

I came close but stuck with it. Now it should be better.


As long as this is applied to everyone and not hand picked individuals that is.