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.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
My remarks regarding reprecussions may have been minconstrued by yourself as I was not refering to ramifications from the Above Top Secret staff but instead from legal authorities.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
The bias treatment is so far beyond what I would have, at one time, considered below ATS standards.
Well sounds like an issue, but according to ATS rules and regulations, being a Mason I do not have the freedom of speech to question your story, so I will, and everyone else reading it, take it as fact and be on my way."
I find the overhaul of the SS forum to be nothing short of disturbing in regards to the principles this site was founded on.
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
the tenor on the board as of late certainly seems to be that negative and incorrect assertions and associations directed at Masonry are welcome while defense against or correction of the same are not.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Our discussion forums are for collaborative debate, not for threatening postures.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by Rockpuck
The bias treatment is so far beyond what I would have, at one time, considered below ATS standards.
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.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
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.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
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.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
the tenor on the board as of late certainly seems to be that negative and incorrect assertions and associations directed at Masonry are welcome while defense against or correction of the same are not.
Once again...
AboveTopSecret.com is a venue for speculating on and discussing conspiracy theories and is not now nor ever will be expected to be a destination dedicated to the defense of Masonry.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
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.
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.
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.
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.
AboveTopSecret.com (as we keep saying) is a venue for speculating on conspiracies, not for defending groups upon which some conspiracy theories are based.
At no point do we now or ever desire a one-sided conversation devoid of informed counterpoints.
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.
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.
We welcome your participation in the debate and need your balance in the search for where the truth might lay.
"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."
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.
Originally posted by masonica_esoterica
Methinks this site is more about making the owners money than it is truth.
I find it ironic that a site that is supposed to "Deny Ignorance" is more concerned about letting people wildly speculate than the truth..
If people want to believe that Freemasonry is a hiearchiacally controlled institution run by reptilian shapeshifters from the 12th planet, then that is certainly their perogative.
However to allow debates to remain one sided,and not to allow individuals to at least present their case,factually and respectfully is an abomination.
.
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Debate's a two-way street, SO.
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Fine although the Obelisk thread would make one pause to consider that though.
Originally posted by twitchy
I just spent a week reading through material I uh... found in some Lodge Parent Directories, and I've got some things to tell the world, but like I told you in the u2u, if we can't even discuss an obelisk and its Hermetical Iconography, then ATS isn't the place to discuss this anymore.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
When we see what looks like an aggressive pile-on from Mason-supporters within threads that are critical of Masonry...
Originally posted by The Axeman
So what you're saying is that it's OK to participate, but there should be a limit on how many Masons can post their thoughts on the topic?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Debate's a two-way street, SO.
When we see what looks like an aggressive pile-on from Mason-supporters within threads that are critical of Masonry... that's not even close to two-way... it's an attempt to get a one-way focus.
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
And if debate's the intention of ATS, how do you respond to "The thread is an observation, the fight with the masons is a hobby of mine."? Kinda speaks volumes, don't it?
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
And if debate's the intention of ATS, how do you respond to "the fight with the masons is a hobby of mine"? Kinda speaks volumes, don't it?
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.
Originally posted by The Axeman
So what you're saying is that it's OK to participate, but there should be a limit on how many Masons can post their thoughts on the topic?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We've provided sufficient information that will serve as a guideline for maintaining civil discussion on ATS topics within the "ATS environment." The picking of nits won't result in productive responses, if at all.