Yes, We Who Run ATS "Sold Out"

I'm not sure that you you could sell out

and as far as quality control goes - how would you even start?

who gets to decide which subjects are interesting?

who gets to decide which people are worthy of an opinion?

who would be in charge of telling people that their language skills aren't up to snuff?

or that they're not logical enough - or that they're just too ridiculous for words?

it's a forum - people speak their minds – peoples minds are all over the place

life is messy

agree/disagree, read it/don't read it

it's self regulating for the most part

I stumbled in here completely by accident - and found that I am unable to leave

if I’m going to complain about anything – it’s going to be about that – because seriously, it’s interfering with my workload

how in the world am I supposed to pass up a place where I get to choose between:

“Vampire encounters”

“US halts solar energy projects over environment fears”

“Need advice/Generational Curse”

“Greenland ice core analysis shows drastic climate change near end of last ice age”

and all the commentary that goes with it?

ATS serves as a real “Wisdom of the Crowd” resource

and it is not a poll

I posted anonymously once – but it felt like chatting with people from inside the bathroom with the doors closed – so I joined

I have a feeling that the anonymous post draws people in - if they’re really interested they won’t stay anonymous for long

except that we’re all still anonymous

What a great metaphor....I like the ability to use language in creative ways.

Bravo!

I forgot -

"Why Does Everything Have To Be A Conspiracy?"

on a conspiracy forum

I laugh every time I see it

reply to post by Rasobasi420

---

You have raised a very good point.

I'm not from the US but I wouldn't want to read about people supporting those who pose a threat to NZDF personal overseas . Members cant talk about criminal activity regardless of nationality so I think that such a blanket ban would have to be in effect .

reply to post by xpert11

---

But that's just it, (and lets not hijack this thread), but different governments have different definitions for criminal activity. That's why the T&C here at ATS is the only law. Banning verbal support of terrorist activities is subject to who defines the terrorist activities. In Iraq, for example, an insurgent would see the US troops as the terrorists, and vice-versa.

reply to post by Rasobasi420

---

OK I am going to make this my last reply on this matter . The definition of terrorist or who the enemy is stems from who the three amigos countries troops are fighting against rather then the opinion of others . Since the owners of ATS don't live in say Iraq the view of an Iraqi holds no sway over this matter . I better leave it at that .

But....

ATS is a website, and its visited by people from all over the world.

And people from all over the world have different opinions of the legality of things.

To many people outside the US, the actual action undertaken by the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq was illegal.

Are you suggesting that no one discusses the Iraq conflict?

reply to post by neformore

---

See your U2U inbox for my reply I don't want to derail this thread.

Cheers xpert11.

I would agree that maybe the staff can intervene when there is massive misspelling in a thread title. Sometimes it can embarrass both the site, and the poster.

For example, if you see 'mitholgy' and you know they mean 'mythology' just make the quick change, and shoot them a u2u.

n/m

[edit on 27-6-2008 by kegs]

You misunderstand. Discussion regarding the motivations of the Iraqi conflict invariably involve specific military action. The discussion of specific military action (as it should occur in the mind of a poster) regarding the life of an individual is not okay. The discussion of the lives of individuals as they stand in the thick of a current and ongoing conflict is mostly current events.

A blanket ban will not occur.

As our standard is, context of the discussion will hold supreme.

As a person whom lives in the boundaries of America, I can say that the actions of my current President's administration caused the death of innocent Americans and Iraqis. As a human being, I can say that I disagree that it was even necessary for such a conflict to occur on such a scale.

I just wanted to stop in to say one thing. Editorial Neutrality is a rare thing in today's world. It's a skill. You can learn it, or you can't.

We should prize it while we still have it. "Editorial Neutrality" is necessary to make some things possible. You really wanna deny ignorance? Let people sink or swim by their own words or deeds. That's what we do on the AP Show. That's what makes ATS work.

reply to post by xpert11

---

You are completely WRONG here my friend, our TAC are the ONLY guiding rules.

The reality is they(our TAC) neither reflect the "laws" of the U.S. or the U.K. per se..., they are designed to keep ATS OFF the net nanny "black list" (such is life in the digital new age ).

It's a simple fact that the definition of "illegal", in this case, has been written by the advertisers who PAY FOR the internet. While I can see lots of people wringing their hands over that, they would likely stop wringing them and agree, it "aint so bad", if every website like ATS cost them a couple hundred dollars a month just to access.

I don't like it, nobody I know likes it, but it's the business model we all have to deal with.

Springer...

[edit on 6-28-2008 by Springer]

Springer I have also replied to you via U2U to avoid dragging the topic off topic .
Cheers xpert11 .