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: 81
126
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Why am I getting a "404" error page when I try to view some of the single posts in profiles?

This occurs in my profile and when viewing other members profiles. The threads are all still open and after reviewing the threads, the posts are all there, it's just not possible to go directly to some of the individual replies.

Is this another "glitch" or is there a genuine reason for it, scanning threads to read an individual post is a pain sometimes.

Any info please?




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


That happens when you're clicking on a single post that's in BTS.

If you look at the links ATS posts are Abovetopsecret.com/forum/single

But the BTS links are just belowtopsecret.com/single. No forum.

There was a code change a while ago where that "forum" part was added. But the links to BTS never got changed, I guess. That's why they don't work.

[edit on 3/14/09 by enjoies05]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by enjoies05
 


thanks for that.


call it another glitch then.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
An ATS member who has selected me as a foe is now banned. Is there any way to get rid of that, or will I remain the foe of someone who is no longer on ATS forever?

This applies also to friends, although it's not as much of an issue. Several people who at one time friended me are now banned.

I understand that you don't delete a banned member's posts or profile for continuity's sake and all that, but why should I be doomed to remain forever foe'd by someone who isn't here and will never be back?

Thanks in advance for any help.

(edit because I'm not perfect)

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Heike]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Two questions:
I dont know how to bring up a picture to the forum now I just get a chain...
Also since for instance this thread is on page 8,000000, how do I find this page for the answer to my question when return?

Thanks, and Heike, I dont have the answer for you but just wanted to say good question, and I am glad we are friends, and I hope this never has to apply to us as we will both be here till the cows come home.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Hi there.

I'm curious.

If we're a conspiracy site why do we have advertisements from the mainstream media?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
I dont know how to bring up a picture to the forum now I just get a chain...


You have to upload it to the Media site...



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
If we're a conspiracy site why do we have advertisements from the mainstream media?

Because their money is just as good as anyone else, and this is a very expensive operation to maintain.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
In fact it's probably better to take the MSM's money to fund the bashing of the MSM..... Oh the irony



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Hey i have a question. How are we supposed to post in the short story writing forum if we aren't allowed to make things up? It says that the information cannot be false. Aren't we supposed to make stories up that never happened when we write? Or am I missing something?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Your answer may be found HERE.


Please be aware that ALL the Terms and Conditions apply in both the Short Story and Collaborative Fiction forums.

As it is mostly fiction that is written, the only rule which does not apply is:

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Excuse me, but ATS is getting to be something of a joke.

Copy of my internal complaint:

“I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS! I was posting in "Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate" (www.abovetopsecret.com...). Then on page 19 defcon5 C-L-E-A-R-L-Y started to attack me by criticizing my "underlining" and "using of "bold fonts", calling it "annoying" and writing I was "mimicking many of the crazier Chemtrail websites out there." Now excuse me, but these were clearly stupid and unfair reproaches and a deliberate personal attack, not a very severe one, but a clear intentional personal attack. I then defended myself on page 34, REFERRING to that post on page 19, by telling him to "just shut up" and did N-O-T use ANY insulting expression. Then the mod removed my post, deducted 1000 points, and did not even touch defcon5's post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excuse me, but this IS UNFAIR AND RIDICULOUS. I know exactly defcon5 WANTED to "slowly" start attacking. And excuse me, but if somebody does that, it must be a allowed to defend oneself with a minimal aggressiveness not only by being "nice". And, just telling somebody - who deliberately(!) attacked - to shut up WITHOUT additionally using any offensive words, is N-O-T exaggerated. I can't be that the "debunkers" are allowed to exert constant "small" but clearly condescending and purposeful personal attacks at will, while attacked truthers get severely punished just for defending themselves, and for the tiniest "impoliteness"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don’t you just modify the membership requirements: “Only those may become ATS members who support the Government”.

BTW if you want to delete my ATS account, I don't care, really, just help yourself. It was nice to see how ATS "works".

[edit on 22-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
I then defended myself on page 34, REFERRING to that post on page 19, by telling him to "just shut up" and did N-O-T use ANY insulting expression.

We store every post that is removed as a result of moderator actions such as this. And after reviewing it, you said much more than that and crossed the line into the territory of demeaning insults.

If you were that taken aback by the comments of another member, why didn't you simply use the ALERT button to let staff know about it rather than lash-out with a flame in the thread?




I can't be that the "debunkers" are allowed to exert constant "small" but clearly condescending and purposeful personal attacks at will, while attacked truthers get severely punished just for defending themselves, and for the tiniest "impoliteness"!

It's unfortunate that you see it that way. Enabling an environment where all sides to any given issue may have a voice in the debate is critical to ascertaining the truth. A conspiracy theory unable to survive critical "debunking" is either no theory at all, or needs additional research and factual support.

Your actions in the thread (from the portion I saw) seem more focused on defending yourself from perceived wrongs than promoting your version of the issue. Remaining focused on the issues is always a successful stance on ATS.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
... And after reviewing it, you said much more than that and crossed the line into the territory of demeaning insults.


No I did NOT cross it. I touched it, and with intent. Because I know that (for instance) a slight ridiculing of somebody who deliberately attacked you is a totally correct defense and “socially accepted” everywhere. And that’s exactly what I did, not one inch more.

But that's how it seems to go on ATS: The debunkers are allowed to cross the line “a little bit”, while the truthers get accused of crossing it before they actually did. And, Overlord, you know exactly that this "one bit too late here - one bit too early there" is making a huge difference.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
I can't be that the "debunkers" are allowed to exert constant "small" but clearly condescending and purposeful personal attacks at will, while attacked truthers get severely punished just for defending themselves, and for the tiniest "impoliteness"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[edit on 22-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]


You are wrong about that. I am on the "debunker" side, but a portion of one of my posts was deleted for being inflammatory. (Note that I have no complaint or issue with that, I'm just using it as an example.)

Also several other "debunkers'" posts were deleted, if you will look through the thread.

That thread was clearly escalating into a "war" of sorts, and in my opinion the mods were trying to calm it down and get everyone back on topic, not punish anyone for having the "wrong" point of view.

P.S. Excessive underlining, bolds, italics, and all caps really are annoying; they make it harder to read for content rather than easier, and they really aren't necessary. One's argument should stand on its own with only the occasional word or phrase emphasized by a style or all caps. Just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyNameIsNobody
No I did NOT cross it. I touched it, and with intent.

If that's how you honestly feel, then with all sincerity I suggest that ATS may not be the discussion venue best suited for you.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I have an issue...

Is it against ATS policy to call someone a disinfo agent or to state they are spreading disinfo?

If not then why was I warned for using the word four times???

If it is against policy then why is it that a number of ATS members, one that is located in this thread is allowed to use the word in almost each post that is made and that even after numerous ALERTs being sent to the mods about this, it appears that nothing has taken place against the offender?

I was actually warned for using this term within a chemtrail thread... I was also told that I shouldn't ask for peoples credentials or try to find their identity... yet within that thread I was challenged by a couple and even slighted and told that my data was not reliable because I fail to provide an identity to my stories, thereby revealing people who've asked for security.... This all while those that challenge me hide behind their ATS anonymity and also complain when I ask for THEIR identities when challenged by them?


Rgds



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


My opinion as an ATS member is that context matters more than the specific word.

"disinformation" and "disinfo agent" are clearly not banned words on ATS; we are welcome to discuss for example whether or not the CIA uses disinfo agents on the internet to confuse various issues.

Calling a specific poster a disinfo agent is likely to be a T&C violation, but not necessarily. It's never a particularly good or useful strategy in an argument though, since it means that you've given up arguing points and are reduced to attacking your opponent.

Many things are best either ignored completely or addressed firmly but briefly.

For example, if someone demands that you prove your credentials, there is nothing wrong with saying "no, I'm not going to reveal personal information on an internet forum." Some people have made the choice to make that information available; that's their choice. It does not make it necessary for the rest of us to match them.

Remember that what goes on here is mostly discussions; most people have already made their minds up on a given issue and aren't going to change them. If you engage in a debate over a point in a thread, it might help to consider that your target audience is not really the person you're arguing with -- they're just in the same performance as you. The real audience is readers who may not have made up their mind on a given subject; do your best to present your side of the argument and maybe you will convince them.

As an aside, pulling the "but so-and-so did the same thing here and got away with it" card is not likely to win friends and influence people. If you think you were unjustly punished, ask the mod who dinged you about it in a u2u. If you don't get a satisfactory answer use the complaints feature in your MemCenter to send a message to the entire staff asking for a review. But "if he did it why can't I" is still as persuasive an argument as it was when we were five and used it on our parents.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Wow thanks for thinking that my thinking is that of a five year old...

My thinking is that if I complain four times to the mods about someone calling me a disinfo agent as well as anyone that challenges his views and no response to my alerts appears to happen I think this unfair. You may think this to be so-and-so can do it, but its just being able to say that if he is clearly pushing disinfo as I and others feel and we voice that concern and then have an entire post removed because its not right to use that statement and then we expect the same in return yet it doesn't happen.... We are called disinfo agents in almost every post or it indirectly relates to us spreading it. For me it looks bad for the mods... there is obvious bias within threads and the two I speak of are only the tip.

As to presenting my side of the argument, it is very difficult when you really have to watch what you say because they may construe that as an attack and yet the others attack you and all your doing is responding and explaining the incorrectness of the post. Most of the threads have an exceptional bias towards any conspiracy of the governments... ATS is really showing its true colors....

Rgds



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join