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.

 

The ATS Issues Thread

page: 140
126
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I propose a new web site called "No Secret At All" where all posters would be required to identify themselves, their background, experience related to topic being discussed, etc. I wonder how many would come forward in such a manner to defend their opinions. I am talking about full disclosure of who they are and what makes their opinion fact instead of simply their opinion.




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bourbon2nite
 


I think that would be very unsafe. Just because some people on the internet are crazy stalkers.

I also think that doing this would make it more difficult for members to get jobs, etc, because they could be judged negatively for participating on such a website or for the opinions that they may put forth.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
But my point is many tell us to stand up against whatever. But u are saying that I should stand up for this or that but dont tell anyone who I am?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bourbon2nite
 


I think you could tell people who you are if you wanted to, but it shouldn't be required.

I mean, it may be different for you, but I'm an 18 year old female and the internet is not a safe place. If I put all that information out there, I'd be uncomfortable sleeping at night. I would also probably raise some questions in my school and at job interviews if I was found on this website from my real name.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by bourbon2nite
 


I think you could tell people who you are if you wanted to, but it shouldn't be required.


It's covered here:

This appears below the text field everytime you post on ATS/BTS:


Please do not post your own personal information. You should be aware that any personally identifiable information you submit here can be read, collected, or used by other users of these forums, and could be used to send you unsolicited messages. We are not responsible for the personally identifiable information you choose to submit, and may remove it at our discretion.






posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Good point ravenshadow... when i consider how many knee jerk reactions i get from people assuming the worst of me, it certainly makes me think twice about putting my name out there. Interesting how the cloak of anonymity frees you up to speak your mind versus being a sycophant to society's fragile state of denial.

Changing gears, the following goes out to everyone who has bothered to read my last post in here. Was my proposal redundant, is that why no one bothered to reply... or do most of you have me on 'ignore'? ...well i suppose if no one replies to this here post either, then i have my answer...


...and speaking of 'ignore'... JacKatMtn, myself and others have sent you numerous u2u's with regard to my thread inquiring about the Document Archive, but no one has heard from you... been on vacation or just back from an abduction?
... the short of it is, if you need an extra hand with combing through FOIA docs, just let me know.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I am seeing an increase in new members posting threads in the Introduction board.

Now it's obviously not the place for such things, I counted like 20 the other day all in the span of a few hours.

It's littering the forum with new threads that aren't suppose to be there.

Is there a solution to this problem. It's nice that new members want to contribute right away, but rules are rules and they need 20 posts.

Perhaps removing the ability to Hyperlink and post videos in this forum would solve the problem? Or making it so they can only type so many characters for an introduction. Say 1000 or something.

~Keeper



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
By any chance...

Is there new info about this new Flag Contribution levels per letter going blue system?

And is there a page describing the points system levels?

And one on what defines a topic expert label?

And is there really a Really Above Top Secret section (how many points does that need?)

And finally - could the FAQ page be updated to answer all these or at least point to the page?

- thanks



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.
[edit on 9/6/09 by ConspiracyNut23]


Would you care to elaborate on this..?


If that is the case - a Coup d'état needs to take place...





[SNIP]


Kinda simple, huh..?

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by trusername
 


You can find all your answers via the search option located at the top right corner of this page... just enter a couple key words for each inquiry you listed.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


The All Seeing I

In regards to the FOIA issue, my apologies for missing your thread on the FOIA docs, let me address that here, the FOIA forum was dedicated to the Clifford Stone FOIA Document Archives, there was no member provided FOIA docs within the project, and right now the project is on a hiatus due to the focus on other projects that are in the works.

I appreciate your offer to join in the effort to make the FOIA documents available and will keep your name in mind when the project is back in the GREEN status. :up



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


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


Springer...


Take the money and run, my gut instinct tells me, things are going to get ugly.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by trusername

By any chance...

Is there new info about this new Flag Contribution levels per letter going blue system?


Here ya go trusername:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And is there a page describing the points system levels?


Eek, there are so many different ways to earn points.
Different forums assign different number of points.
Then there are applause, tinwiki contributions, debating, contests, podcasts, etc ...


And one on what defines a topic expert label?


As I understand it FSME are by staff invitation at their discretion.


And is there really a Really Above Top Secret section (how many points does that need?)


It's just a stepping stone to the "You won't believe how insanely top secret" forum, or YWBHITS.
Oops, never mind ... I said too much.


Edit to add: Oh, and it takes 5000 points at the ATS store to buy into RATS.

[edit on 10 Jun 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


I did use the search for an hour - and finally gave up. Did find a lot of other people looking too though
I think the FAQ page could maybe use a little facelift if anyone has the time. Still referring to 2004 threads as answers (now obsolete) and the 2007 elections


thanks though



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 



Perfect - thanks for the link!



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I am having an issue with my 'copy and paste' feature, does anyone know if this is ATS related or is it my ISP? It appears that sometimes I can't copy or paste anything, other times I can copy but NOT paste? I am not sure if this is a ATS issue or ISP?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Are you using a mouse or ctrl+c and ctrl+v? If you're using your mouse, try the keyboard shortcuts and see if that works.

You have to highlight it first with the mouse of course. Forgot to add that part before I clicked post, but I'm sure you probably already knew that.


[edit on 10-6-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Thanks, I will when (if) it happens again, I think it is a ISP issue, maybe cache or something. But I had to see if it might be ATS related anyways.


 


General Question to board:

I want to suggest that possibly the disclaimer on releasing personal information be altered a bit to reflect the fact that it is indeed an offense that will get your post removed and NOT a suggestion, because that just happened to me a few posts up. I probably misinterpreted it but I still feel it might be better to state it is against T and C to do so.


[edit on 6/11/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Interesting? yes
Fascinating? yes
Of importance to me? yes

Alternative?

NO

Semper


??? So pretty much what you are saying, or implying, is that the government is doing this, trying to heavily restrict and even ban the Second Amendment, for our own benefit, and there is no alternative explanation for what they are doing?

You are saying, or implying, the official story is right, just like they claimed that they should ban Americans from owning semi-automatic assault weapons, which in the bills they were/are trying to pass included weapons which were not assault weapons, because the Mexican drug dealers have been using fully automatic assault weapons, which U.S. government officials are claiming are coming from the U.S., even though everyone knows they are coming from the black market. In this case you seem to be implying that the government is doing this just to fight the Mexican drug dealers, and not trying to disarm Americans to control us more. So you see, there are "alternative" explanations for the government trying to restrict and ultimately ban our Second Amendment right.

If what you seem to be implying is true then 9/11, as well as many other conspiracy theories, was never an alternative conspiracy theory since there is less proof for the government being involved behind 9/11, than proof that the government seems to be concentrating on disarming Americans to control us more.





[edit on 11-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join