posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by Solarskye
Solarskye is so RIGHT ON in this post I had to mention it publicly.
Suggesting a committee of 7 or even 700 to be the judges of someone's "story"/experience is called censorship no matter how you slice it. It's the
few deciding what the many may or may not read. NOT good.
WRT myself or another senior staffer reviewing evidence or credentials, we constantly offer that on the threads we are made aware of. With over 4,000
new posts a day on average it's easy to miss many.
WRT a mod reviewing each new member's first few threads, well that's just impossible with the huge number of new members (>100 a day) and again
smacks of censorship a little.
I have always had faith in our community's ability to root out the hoaxers and we have a darn good track record in doing so. I think it's important
to point out that it's impossible to "debunk" or discredit someone's professed experiences
. Don't confuse what someone says they saw, felt
or heard for a "hoax", they're not the same. Delusion is certainly a possibility in this realm but hoax is not.
A hoax requires a claim of EVIDENCE or knowledge based on position.
i.e. "I know the Govt. has been reverse engineering alien tech for years because I worked on it." THAT (the employment) is something we can and do
require evidence of .
The following is not a hoax, it's an "experience" (likely a delusional one but I am not a doctor)...
"I know the government has been reverse engineering alien tech for years because I saw an elephant riding a snow board while sipping a martini and
playing poker with a Gray."
The former offers LOTS of opportunities for verification/discussion and will get the person banned if they don't produce same while the latter is
hardly worth responding to even though it is within the bounds of the TAC.