ATS WATCH -MY OPINION
So, I saw the thread recently titled "Whats up with ATSWatch?"
Personally, I belive skeptic overlord should not have closed that thread, as there was much more to speak of there, and the ATSWatch discussion could
very well get diluted on this one thread.
Also, Even though I want to talk about the ATSWatch site, I have no issue with ATS, so I'm not sure why it should be moved here.
But whatever, ... here is my opinion
The guys at ATSWatchs have two issues
1. They believe that ATS's policy is to enforce ignorance
2. They feel that the ATS owners are somehow "questionable"
I can't speak to #2 at all. I have no idea what they mean, and I have no knowledge of anything which I might assume they are speaking of.
[Edit here after looking more closely at ATS Watch]. It appears one of the issues is that folks like John Lear, Who I personally think has no
business on any site which would seek to maintain any credibility, is a nutcase, yet other hoaxers get booted. I'd have to say that I understand
where Springer is coming from; namely that although Lear is clearly a nutjob, he's not a pre-meditated hoaxer.
That aside I personally think Lear has no place on a forum such as ATS, unless... And this is the crux of the ATSWatch principles, the Owners of ATS
(OATS) only reason to keep him around is due to his attraction of users; crazy, unbelievable, hit-increasing, eye-ball having, ad impression
What I REALLY want to talk about though is this concept of what ATS is.
ATS is exactly what the "About ATS" page says, which they ATSWatch site links to. It is not a definitive source of truth, but a place where people
can go to get a feeling of what people THINK truth might be.
Now before someone says "Well, everyone "thinks" what they know is truth", let me say this. ATS's expressed purpose is not to come to any
conclusions, but let the readers come to conclusions. Although... to be honest, ATS promotes a lot of nutjobs who have zero credibility, such as John
Evidently, the folks at ATSWatch wanted a system whereby they wouldn't hash over the same misinformation over and over again. They want a memory.
They want that memory to be conclusive, and then they want to move onto the next thread.
This intention of theirs is very admirable, and I support *that* kind of forum if it is agreeable to me, if not, then I might support another forum
which has a different concept of what the TRUTH might be.
ATS Watch says this
But what if you are only seeking the TRUTH?
And what if, in seeking that TRUTH you stumble across something that seems to discredit ATS? Are you now 'ignorant'?
They go on, but I have to stop them right here.
How could you ever discredit ATS? I mean, for that to happen, ATS would have to have the ability of comming to some conclusion on a topic and then
registering that conclusion in a "archive of facts" some place.
But that is not what ATS does at all. It NEVER comes to a conclusion. ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO!
The whole point of ATS, which is descirbed in the About ATS link, is a conspiracy marketplace of sorts. The concept is that the truth will
"probably" be someplace in between the extremes of any topic. And ATS is like a giant honeypot meant to attract the extremes so that the middle
ground can be divined by the initiated.
And before someone says "Hey! Mr Elitist... who are these initiates?"
They are the people who have learned to read between the lines of ATS, nothing more.
So with that, I think the difference between ATS and ATSWatch can be summed up as follows:
ATS == A forum which attracts both crack pots and anti-crack pots. The result is the ability to see a range of opinions on any topic and hopefully
come away more informed than you arrived.
ATSWatch == A group of people who believe that once something has been debunked, it should be remembered as such. Also that doesn't support the
promotion of nutjobs such as John Lear.
[edit on 18-7-2008 by Quazga]