The ATS Issues Thread, page 139
Pages: <<  136    137    138    139    140    141    142  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 126 times


reply posted on 9-6-2009 @ 09:13 AM by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by Odessy and post by nerbot


Some members are "stealth banned". Meaning that their profile will not label them as banned, yet they are unable to post on ATS. However, I don't think this is the case with John Lear.

ps: Odessy, Homo Nosce te Ipsum doesn't mean "Man know thyself and thou shalt know the Universe and the Gods" it simply means "Man know thyself". By the way, "Nosce te Ipsum" was part of the passphrase for the Major degree of Adam Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati.


[edit on 9/6/09 by ConspiracyNut23]


reply posted on 9-6-2009 @ 02:14 PM by The All Seeing I
Originally posted by Odessy
They still haven't come up with a solution to the Narcotics issue here on ATS... which is the source of a lot of important conspiracies.


Maybe we could bring drugs back to RATS? If i recall right, all drug related threads were left to organically evolve there. Then the subject was dragged out into the light and given it's own banner and house (which deserves great applause)... until a week later the village-idiots (those who couldn't follow T&C) set fire to it.

Since you have to cough up points to gain access to RATS and all contented posted there is out of view of the search engines... such a locale should serve as a safe haven for such hot issues. Though i think we can do one better then this... have a whole forum devoted solely to the subject... but grant it a RATS point access feature with the cloak of anonymity from the search engine spiders... and for extra insurance that people play nice, if they get even one warning from their activity on the forum they automatically get banned from posting there for a week...and now that we have the bronze level of contribution and beyond with ad banners turned off (btw kudos & thank you for this ), if this also is made an access requirement, this should put any current and potential advertisers concerns at bay about being associated with such content.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 11:07 AM by whatukno
reply to post by TrueAmerican



I couldn't agree more.

ATS tried its hardest to incorporate intelligent drug topics on this board only to have a select few who for some god knows reason couldn't stop posting about their own personal illegal drug use.

ATS in my opinion did the right thing, they really tried very hard to put these issues to the forefront but it was the membership that let ATS down.


reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 11:24 AM by Springer
reply to post by TrueAmerican



Right... We were talking about this the other day, but $50 million would get our attention.

Springer...


reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 12:19 PM by yeahright
reply to post by earlywatcher



There are a zillion places on the web to do that already. We've made a conscious decision to not be one of them. You can't be all things to all people, and we're pleased with our niche and the direction it's moving.


reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 12:35 PM by masqua
reply to post by Springer



At $50 million, I honestly believe ATS would be a yard sale kind of bargain.

The sheer potential of a website like what has been built through the visionary qualities of Simon Gray and the hardworking administrators who spend so much of their time and energy here needs to be addressed.

Thanks to Karlhungis for his thread We are living in exponential times, because the vid showcases shows just what is happening on a global scale.

You can keep the sound off/down because the accompanying music really grated my nerves and it's all text anyways.

Here it is:



THAT'S potential.

ATS shouldn't consider anything less than 10 X $50 million, if at all.

For what it's worth, that's my $0.02 on it.


reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 01:48 PM by ElectricUniverse
Well for some reason i knew my thread would be closed, must have been my spidey sixth sense, so I copied what i wrote there, and i am posting it here to see if i can ask these question without the thread being closed down, since using the complaint/issues U2U does not result on any kind of information being given to the members about the "complaint/issue" sent.

(well my thread with the question was closed, but my questions can still be read, however i would like to be able to discuss the reason why the staff is doing this)

Here is what i asked.

Second Amendment Threads Moved out of BAN.

I have seen lately that threads pertaining to our Second Amendment rights which are being infringed upon keep being moved from BAN into the "politics" forum. Yet posts about 9/11, and other less important issues which have their own section are not moved at all.

Two threads which i made recently about Americans Second Amendment right were moved recently. One had to do with the NRA suing the court in Illinois for claiming they didn't have to abide by the Second Amendment, moved to "politics". Today, a thread about a new legislation that will ban 8 out of 10 pockets knives if it passes was also moved to "politics".

Most threads in BAN have some form of political involvement, yet most are not moved out of BAN, yet those that have to do with the Second Amendment are being moved out of BAN/

Is the Second Amendment right of Americans not important anymore for BAN?





[edit on 10-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]


reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 02:05 PM by semperfortis
reply to post by ElectricUniverse



Interesting? yes
Fascinating? yes
Of importance to me? yes

Alternative?

NO

Semper


reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 02:06 PM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Springer



50?

ok then, could I get a buck a reply, a buck a flag, and 5 bucks a star? Dinner and beer's on me... your choice of restaurant! Whatever's left after that I'll donate to the new TV show.... You WILL have a new TV show, yes? And this could be your new ATSMobile:



Whatcha say? A new paint job, a pic of SO in his jumpsuit, Val hanging out the sunroof, and yer good to go! Area 51, here we come! Talk about a great pilot episode!


reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 02:12 PM by semperfortis
reply to post by ElectricUniverse



aren't ALL BAN threads about "speculation


Nope

They are about...

Breaking
Alternative
News

Semper


reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 05:10 PM by jkrog08
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23



What constitutes a 'stealth ban'? I thought a ban was a ban.




reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 05:21 PM by seagull
reply to post by jkrog08



ain't no such critter. Opinions to the contrary not withstanding...


reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 05:38 PM by jkrog08
reply to post by seagull



Okay, thanks for clearing that up, I guess the administration just removed the 'banned' words from the mini-profiles then?

EDIT to add: Does anyone know how to send a mass comment on a profile(like a picture)?

[edit on 6/10/2009 by jkrog08]
Pages: <<  136    137    138    139    140    141    142  >>    ^^TOP^^