Originally posted by yankeerose
First, I would like to thank ATS Mgmt for not banning me.
It always amazes me that people anticipate getting banned for stuff like this.
Would ATS be a site that would be mined by them for the information it contains?? Absolutely!
Check out my post here
One of the tidbits I didn't mention is that the thread has also been heavily visited by nearly every intelligence and law enforcement agency you can
Why were S.O. and the mods assigned to the case unable to find the remarks quoted by John Lear?
If you Google many of them, they're no where to be found... still, while some indeed are within the thread. This is what led to the initial concern.
In fact, our staff first approached this from the standpoint that Jeff is the one that should be banned... until some of the quotes weren't readily
Why did S.O. email JL that Ritz had admitted to editing his threads?
That was my false assumption (admitted in the Camelot thread). When I emailed Jeff the list of quotes from John, he admitted saying those things, and
given the edit tags, my immediate assumption was that Jeff removed some of them.
Why is JL left holding the bag on this whole affair?
Well... unfortunately, John jumped to some errant conclusions. He wrongly concluded that our desire to keep a tit-for-tat spat between two respected
members off the public forums was some form of cover-up. It wasn't. We've "stuck our neck" out several dozen times in our year-long effort to
support his ability to further his opinions, concepts, and theories here on ATS because of this stature in the overall aliens and conspiracy genre.
We've defended his forum here, spent money with our PR agency to promote him, gave him significant time in our podcasts, and much more. There have
been dozens of times where he has privately brought issues like this one to our attention... I have no idea why he chose to begin a public drama over
minor rhetorical comments, but he did and we did our best to try and resolve it amicably.
Why the lie that JL was able to post anytime he wanted to when he was banned?
I think this is a simple misconceptions. Members who receive a post-ban have an open door to discuss their status and work things out behind the
scenes. In my last email to John, that open was clearly made available to him.
Why lead the forum to believe this was all JL's fault, when it is obvious that all he was doing was trying to find out why his friends had so
suddenly turned against him.
Well... given what I just related above, it has seemed to us as though he had suddenly turned against us... or was using this event as a reason to
make a noisy exit. I don't know his motives, but that's how it looked from our end. I liked John... still do. While I don't agree with many of his
concepts, I have and will fully support his right to say them, and even go so far as to add that the "conspiracy theory" genre as a whole needs to
hear what he has to say.
Why does ATS allow members to attack without correction a former CM
We do need to work harder to ensure our members separate the man from the theories when critique happens. I think many people got into the habit of
focusing on him while he was here because he had an often "crotchety" posting style that seemed to invite personal commentary head-on.
Why does ATS seem to quiet and close threads by JL supporters pointing out the discrepancies of the ATS version of the issue.
Does my information above fill in the appropriate blanks?