Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Not misconstrued at all. If you or any one else has issue with material posted to AboveTopSecret.com from a legality standpoint of a criminal or civil
nature, you should not be posting threats in threads, you should be contacting the ownership of
The Above Network, LLC. Our discussion forums are for collaborative debate, not for threatening postures.
If I may interject:
Again you misunderstand the meaning of what Augustus is saying. He's not talking about legal action to be taken on the part of ATS in any way, shape
or form. He is stating the the member who authored the "Problem Lodge..." post should seek the authorities to deal with the issue, not counsel from
ATS Masons, as it appears is his intent.
There is no "bias" as you would think. AboveTopSecret.com (as we keep saying) is a venue for speculating on conspiracies, not for defending groups
upon which some conspiracy theories are based.
Is challenging someone's logic or asking for clarification defending a group? If someone on the board said "All Christians paint themselves purple
and chant the "Barney" theme song while murdering cats on the anniversary of the day Judas betrayed Jesus" I would meet that post with the same
skepticism and challenges of logic and sources as I would on a post about Masonry -- or any other topic for that matter.
You're intentionally injecting errant meaning into what I and several other staff members have been saying, as well as our long-tradition of
operation. At no point do we now or ever desire a one-sided conversation devoid of informed counterpoints. However, the terms & conditions must be
followed... overly antagonistic and threatening posts are inappropriate on ATS no matter what the subject.
I have yet to see a "threatening" post in this forum. Antagonistic? Perhaps but not "threatening."
The problem is that the way it seems is that you do
desire a "one-sided" conversation about it, you just don't want to come out and say
it... probably due to the term defined in my sig.
You shoot yourself in the foot:
AboveTopSecret.com (as we keep saying) is a venue for speculating on conspiracies, not for defending groups upon which some conspiracy theories
At no point do we now or ever desire a one-sided conversation devoid of informed counterpoints.
Kind of contradicting yourself, aren't you? If this place is not for "defending groups" and one side of the issue is a "defensive" one, then
obviously you support one-sided discussion...
Really? The principles upon which this site stand is the support a venue where anyone can raise a broad spectrum of exceptionally provocative
issues without fear of being inappropriately attacked by intensely antagonistic and bellicose responses.
But even if the responses are not "intensely antagonistic and bellicose," you seem to have a problem with it. Even if we attack positions and
sources rather than the individuals posting it, as is appropriate in debate, you still seem to have a problem with it.
You can't have ot both ways, SO. Either we are not welcome here as defenders of what we believe and know to be true (or false) -- and you *DO* favor
one-sided discussion -- or we should be held to the terms and conditions as individual members
not as a group. Furthermore we should not be
singled out for Moderator attention simply because we belong to a "group."
One would think that someone such as yourself would appreciate the contributions of ATS members that have unique perspectives with regard to the
Perhaps I was right to consider not returning after the last "incident."
It's unfortunate that there are Mason members who are unwilling to fathom the idea that the core ideals upon which ATS was founded will tend
to attract topics that are often highly critical of Masons and Masonry.
SO, I don't know if you are aware, but when I came to ATS I was not a Mason. I was actually pretty close to "Anti-Mason," due to ignorance,
obviously. So I know what it is to come here and post critically of Masonry... I also have done countless hours of research specifically about topics
that crop up on the ATS SS forum. I have a somewhat unique experience here and unlike you, I have spent years researching Masonry and the conpiracy
theories that surround it.
My point is I was an ATSer before I was a Mason. The fact is that each Mason here is here because they found ATS and are interested... you act like we
coordinate or attemtpt to "gang up" on people, which I think is ridiculous. We each have our own opinions and we share them. The fact is that we all
have had a similar experience so we have similar things to say in regard to what is being discussed. We don't "conspire" to debunk theories --
frankly there is no need for that anyway.
We welcome your participation in the debate and need your balance in the search for where the truth might lay.
Do you? What if the Truth is that there is no Masonic conspiracy? Do you still welcome that kind of participation? Are you interested in that
You keep posting:
"The purpose of the Secret Societies Forum is to discuss the conspiratorial nature of organizations and members of those organizations that
have in the past or currently are shielding their activities from the public at large."
So, what if there is none? I have yet to see anyone discuss those particular topics... at least not past the point where this question is asked:
"What makes you feel that way or leads you to that conclusion?"
Then it goes to attacks and crying about "bullying" or some nonsense like that.
That's not debate; that's just posting bile.
I have no problem with speculation, but there has to be some reasoning behind it. Without Reason, speculation quickly becomes nonsense, especially in
light of facts that contradict the speculation. Denying or discounting demonstrable facts in favor of unreasonable speculation is stupidity, IMHO.
However... your participation must be within the confines of our Terms & Conditions and with the understanding that ATS is an inherently
unsympathetic environment to certain groups.
Do you mean the original Terms and Conditions, or the recent additions specifically written to target Masons and our activity in these threads?
The latter, I'm sure. Which is unfortunate, because the very fact that those additions were made ("forum gangs") is proof of the fact that you do
not want us to participate -- at least in any meaningful way.
[edit on 2/17/08 by The Axeman]