It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Not yet, but it's always good to have goals.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
No Lord Bucket, it's not warnings, cause I don't have 153 warnings...
Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
ETA: With all these changes can we please include posters content after we hit reply, it makes it much easier to reference as we respond.
Originally posted by
Seems that approximately 90% of the reply posts that I have seen here on ATS - are coming from very hostile Skeptics and debunkers. It doesn't even seem to matter what the subject content is.
It is a byproduct/side effect of biological obligations.
I was not sure sure what you meant by "militant skeptics". I spent more than a decade in the usaf, stationed at nellis afb, with exception of basic training, technical training, and deployments. I would not consider myself skeptical of some things, nor a debunker of some things. I'm not sure if I could be, and be honest to my own senses.
I will pose the question again. If it all such crap to you - why waste your time at such a site?? Are you the self-appointed Vanguards of the woefully un-educated paradigms of the easily-led?
Since these questions do not apply to me, I can only imagine.
A fair analogy (I think), proving that skeptics and debunkers only have numbers and statistics on their side:
once out of fifteen times two four sided jigsaw puzzle pieces do line up and fit, if the puzzle only has two pieces, that is.
A skeptic is still passively seeing if those sides can line up and fit together, but are taking into account debunkers.
Debunkers have already decided that they pieces of the puzzle do not line up, but maybe have not tried all 16 possible combinations. Perhaps reasonable doubt = debunked? Believers are optimistic, but their progress is slowed down due to dealing with believers who are perhaps pessimistic, and debunkers who are thwarting certain truisms unconsciously and subconsciously due to internal intracellular obligations and genetic prime directives. Again, possibly a defense mechanism.
Really, what is it that you gain from being such a destructive force - amongst people that are simply exploring / developing alternative theories? Regardless; who died and made you 'the last word' on anything? What are your true credentials?
Actually, I see many individuals in our ATS community who do have some expert and learned credentials, but are currently in a skeptical or debunking mode. They do offer some level of truth and do bring legitimate concerns to our think tank community. Personally, I do not enjoy the luxuries of being skeptical or feeling the entire ufo/alien visitation phenomenon is without any merit. My days of arguing whether this pixel or that pixel exists or has been altered are behind me. There are others more qualified to argue such trivial matters, .... well ... trivial in from my perspective at least.
If you don't believe in something - fine.
They believe, they just demand physical proof devoid of ideological obligations, in some cases.
Make your point - hack it up - and move on to your next target of insult.
Insults present a lack of credentiality, credibility, where as legitimacy may not be affected if one's facts and intelligent arguments are presented in a knowledgable and unassuming way. If you detect any amount of deception, or of psychological manipulation instigated by said tacticians we can feel free to dismiss their key points rather easily while not enduring an emotional response, or affecting our long term relationships and intrapersonal friendships with said skeptics and debunkers. We can be on the same side, without agreeing with eachother on all points.
But this 'over and over and over again' crap is simply inexcusable.
I'll excuse this statement. No harm, no foul.
Ultimately, I blame the MODS. You should all resign - and get some folks in here that will protect against repeated attacks against unconventional ideas, or idealism.
Why blame the MODS? Have you seen the application list? And you want the MODS to ALL Resign?
If not - Conceed to your true nature!
Concede, but you were probably typing too fast, and this more than likely was a typo. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and think conceding to our true nature is one way to become acquanted with our true nature, I suppose.
'Free Speech' also implies limiting the oppression quotes.
And if we spout back at Cons - we are then flagged with etiquette policy notifications - or often - it is the OP that gets their materials removed. Quite biased, I must say. And it is a tactic - a strategy used by some here - that have nothing better to do that to assault other's 'think tank' threads. And the website doesn't seem to see through this behaviour.
It is difficult to filter through all truisms and fact check every statement. Let the Mods enjoy their ATS, too. Ultimately it is up to the members to take some measure of personal reliability and personal responsibility for the statements they present as absolute and unbiasedly true facts based upon credentialed legitimate sources of information.
There are quite a number of beliefs posted here at ATS that I don't personally subscribe to: But I also do not fill 10 pages of retro-posts: pummelling their submissions. That is simply the M.O. of school yard bullies. It reminds me of a goal tender in a hockey game. It smacks of fear.
The truth does not always require defending, or fighting in favor of. While others are burning callories arguing pixels and/or attempting character assassinations, they recluse themselves while choosing to be their own self contained determent.
And I am quite certain that it stops many from coming back to ATS.
Diversity that covers the spectrum of the rainbow of attributes and specialities is something that makes ATS more productive in my opinion. However, I can appreciate the attentiveness to detail.
Something that management should be more concerned about ; but it seems not to be the case. If a subject seems unreasonable; it is most often labeled as 'Proven Hoax' - or 'Officially Debunked.'
Perhaps you can supply some examples of what has been classified as a hoax that you personally think was premature or not appropriate.
And what does 'Officially Debunked' mean, anyway? It is simply, merely general consensus. It is 'proof' of nothing - short of pomp and circumstance. It is decided by the programmer that possesses the most powerful editing tool. Again I say; However well educated: Opinion is not tantamount to 'proof.'
Even "experts" can be wrong. However studies that are hundreds of years old seem to support that the more diverse the group, and the more the numbers, the closer the average of their guesses (educated or not) is to the truth.
I recall a story of a noble man who made a bet that none of the commoners or peasantry could guess the accurate weight of a beast during a medieval fair. Their was a compitition where hundreds of peasants guessed the weight of the pig or cow, and no one of them guessed the accurate weight, yet when all the guesses were added up and the average was determined, they had collectively guessed the accurate weight of the beast. For similiar reasons, I can see how some democratic suppression of deduced falsehoods should be temporarily or permanently suppressed, especially when specialists of academic studies also weigh in with tidbits of truisms.
If they truly were such experts - they'd be teaching at MIT - or some damn place. If anyone here truly 'had the goods' to the question of the existence of UFO's - they'd be instructing Stephen Hawking.
Teaching Stephen Hawking? Why bother? Even he himself has stated that even if he knew the theory of everything he would not share it because then what would be left for anyone else to do? I equate this to being a team member in a relay race who refuses to pass on the batton to the next racer because he feels he has won the race even though no team member of his has crossed the finish line, let alone broken the tape. Damn rude, arrogant, and self absorbed if you ask me. It equates to "If I know, I'm not telling you."
Until the censoring MODS close this thread down: ( which they soon will ) I hope the jerks read this - and spew more vile. You only prove my point.
Why be a proponent of their tactics? Why reinforce their efforts by letting it effect you on a personal level?
And if this type of behavior is all-so-acceptable; why doesn't ATS rename themselves 'the Skeptic's Corner.'??
That is good name for a forum, maybe
It would be a more of an honest approach, would it not? Then you could all gloat over your self-appointed perception of your supreme intellects.
Supreme intellects is still akin to calling someone a "know it all", which is not what skeptics and debunkers are. But it does have negative connotations, in my opinion.
So much of the behaviour that I continuously see here is absolutely shameful. And - the mods just let it continue . I think taking this approach also represents the website's true stance. So be honest, and come forth. I think that such people are gutless - and hide behind the safety of their computer modems.
Can you tell us how you really feel? Please, don't hold back.