Originally posted by masonica_esoterica

The only Heiarchy of individuals that I see trying to control the information on these boards are a handful of indviduals on the staff of the site whose views of Freemasonry are hostile.

I know this to be untrue.

Conspiracy-Theorists need to understand that most masons are normaltons, average-joes who dont have a clue of any grand world conspiracy scheme. Naturally they are taken aback by the claims made against them.

Masons need to understand that most anti-masons live in a paradigm of "conspiracy-theory" in which the claim "There is no conspiracy" evokes yet greater suspicion.

This mutual non-understanding fuels a lot of hostility.

Originally posted by biggie smalls
.

I personally believe Masonry had a huge hand in the creation of this country, including the building of the US capital.

You will not get much disagreement from any of us regarding the founding of the United States. I would actually enjoy a topic of this nature as opposed to some of the others that have arisen. Perhaps you wish to start one?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Conspiracy-Theorists need to understand that most masons are normaltons, average-joes who dont have a clue of any grand world conspiracy scheme. Naturally they are taken aback by the claims made against them.

Masons need to understand that most anti-masons live in a paradigm of "conspiracy-theory" in which the claim "There is no conspiracy" evokes yet greater suspicion.

This mutual non-understanding fuels a lot of hostility.

The thing that is most irksome about most antimasonic claims is that they implore you to prove a negative, which is near impossible.The burden of proof is on the one leveling an accusation, that is how all just courts of law operate.

In all honesty if anyone is seeking to know where the real evil is they need only look in the mirror.We are all capable of commiting evil and atrocities under the right conditions.We all have a choice to make as to obeying or denying what is morally right in all aspects of our lives.Sometimes we may not know what the adverse repercussions of our actions may be, should we do something that is in the grey area and not "technically" wrong or evil, and actions can snowball.I believe this is true of ALL humanity,including political leaders.I feel that our leaders may not have safeguarded themselves against corruption, and that more than any grand conspiracy may be the causation of the ills of this world.Woe to humanity if there is actually a global geopolitical cabal/network of evil.

I'm not a Secret Societies expert (but I play one on TV):

What if the Truth is that there is no Masonic conspiracy?

There is the root of the problem in my humble opinion.

You must start off with a pre-determined conclusion claiming to be all knowing about every masonic activity and secret since the beginning of it's existence to arrive at such a conclusion.

It is the height of arrogance and hubris.

Who died and made any member of your organisation the final arbiter of what the truth is? What right do you have to make it your mission to browbeat someone else into accepting your truth?


What if the truth is that Oswald acted alone and the magic bullet theory is 100% correct?

What if the truth is that UFOs don't exist?

What if the truth is that ghosts don't exists?

What if the truth is that all paranormal activity is just someone's active imagination?

What if the truth is that the CIA stands of for "Truth, Justice and the American Way"?

What if the truth is that Governments are only looking out for you and me?

What if the truth is that Central Banking is a government institution looking out for our best interest?

What if the truth is that some cave dweller co-ordinated 19 fanatics armed only with box cutters to get past the best military defenses in the world and bring a country to it's knees for a couple of days?


Are you starting to get the picture or shall I go on?
.

In short:

Telling a conspiracy-theorist "There is no conspiracy" is not the smartest way to communicate.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
I am certain that you have noticed the recent decline in postings by Masons on the Secret Socities forum ...

There is no doubt this is happening and I am certainly part of that phenomenon. I think there are too many masons on ATS for the Masonic-Conspiracy Theorists to be comfortable, for all the reasons SO outlined, and it's creating a paranoiac mindset amongst some members.

Scaling back on ATS is no problem - I'm pretty busy outside of cyberspace so a little more lurking suits me fine. I expect we'll see more of the same from others too, and some balance will be restored to the forum.

Unfortunately, this whole thing is totally cyclical, and a new crop of "anti-masons" will be along presently to ask the same questions and resent being sent off to read old threads. Tolerance of this situation is essential, and patience will be required all round.

Masons on ATS who are not comfortable repeating themselves endlessly and repetitively ad nauseam are, I'm afraid, in the wrong forum. Because that's what it's like here and it aint gonna change.

A reduction in the amount of Freemason Posts on ATS will also appease those people who believe freemasons are "dog-piling", "glad-handing" or whatever else it is we are supposed to be doing. I do get annoyed when people suggest freemasons on ATS are co-ordinating their activities because I know perfectly well it isn't true. But it's all about perception, and I'm sure the irony of this situation won't be lost on true CTers.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

From a behind a scenes point of view I can see that staff is trying to be impartial as every action taken by staff is discussed by several moderators from both sides of the fence...long before that action is taken.

Fair enough. I notice the lack of postings by either Intrepid or Mirthful Me certainly scotches the suggestion of pro-Masonic impropriety in terms of warnings and such. Mind you, is there overcompensation in the other direction? Certainly IMHO, SO's intrusion here has dropped something of a discussional tactical nuke into things in the apparent belief that Masons were piling-on. Typically, the Masons have been reactive, answering questions or at least addressing fallacies. Would it be preferable to ATS to let inconsistencies go unchallenged? Certainly it would allow a maintenance of catering to conspiracies without the messy reality of having the conspiracies disproved.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The idea of the SecretSocietiesForum is to discuss conspiracy-theory, also anti-masonic conspiracy-theory. This has been stifled in the last months as there are more masons present (or more posts by them) than conspiracy-theorists. That cant be and neednt be helped though.

As I said before, t'is others asking questions, not Masons creating a mutual back-scratching party. If questions about Masonry dominate the SS Forum, could that not be because its the best-known of the erstwhile 'secret' societies? It certainly isn't because we've been the ones positing the questions.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The original intent of the Forum is thereby derailed, making it look as if there are masonic "gang ups" happening (at least thats what it looks like in the eyes of the suspicious conspiracy-theorist).

To someone dropping in out of the blue, certainly I can appreciate it might appear so at first flush. But that's where regularity of modding comes in. In my recollection, before this blew up, Intrepid was the only mod who'd drop in here on anything approaching a regular basis and this isn't even supposed to be his turf. Perhaps that's an appearance thing only but of the list of mods who're supposed to be patrolling this 'hot zone', almost none come to mind as having actually shown up until recently. Amusingly enough, Intrepid's been called a Mason I-can't-guess how many times and I'd suggest that his judgment is regarded by the Masons on the board as having been fair.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Apparent "Pile up" and "gang up" cant be changed. But as long as the general rules of internet ettiquette are followed - and that includes "attack the topic, not the person" - two-way-debates can and will continue.

Yet that seems to have been generally the rule of thumb that's been followed yet somehow, an identifiable group has been singled-out by a certain big-swingin'-you-know-what as not having done so. Makes it hard to trust the judgment of said big-swingin'-you-know-what.

Originally posted by masonica_esoterica
I never called anyone stupid,I am above personal insults,and denigration of any member of the human race.Claiming that someone is ignorant of facts,however is a different story.

ignorance

noun
the lack of knowledge or education

Please don't put words in my mouth and make it look as though I called any individual on these boards stupid.

Alright, not stupid, only ignorant...

...ignorant of what you say is true.

Originally posted by masonica_esoterica
prove a negative

Oh groan....
"I can't proove a negative" is a really quasi-impressive sounding way of saying I can't be bothered to argue effectively for or against an assertion.
Can't proove a negative... Where did that come from, and since when does it imply anything but a lack? Can you imagine going to court and arguing that you don't have to argue your case at all because you can't proove you didn't do something? Can you imagine trying to tell your lawyer that you don't need to proove anything because you just know better? I don't think a good lawyer would even let you say that in open court lest it make you look a tom fool.
Anti-masonic posts may seem to you to be Circular logic, but it seems far more productive than square logic IMO. Not every Anti-Mason is ignorant, and not all of us are restricted to profane resources to develop our theories. Be wary freemasonry, truth is like a river, you can dam it up, you can divert it, or you can dirty it up so that nobody wants to be near it, but you absolutely cannot stop it.

Oh, I'm here. I just can't put words together any better than Skyfloating. MM's on sabbatical.

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
I see where your coming from here, but just because your a master mason and your not involved doesn't mean that it's not going on. Being a high ranking mason might be one of a long list of requirements to be 'in the know'. If 'they' wanted you to know, you would.

This is my cue to ask you what exactly do you mean by "high ranking mason"? What did you have in mind when you used that phrase? I'm still hopeful that one day I'll get some reasonable understanding of who these people are.