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.

 

Why do Masons always ask for evidence when it's in front of them?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 



Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
"Effort"? "Scholarly"? By that definition, everyone who's ever Googled is a scholar in your book. Large book. As for the intent, he's pretty obviously applying Occam's Razor to your posited Rube Goldberg assertions.


Yes scholarly and effort; the man speculatively read my postings stretching back a year back. To what end put collect any information he could. I consider that weird. In fact it also displays a stalker personality.

If he can find this information in minutes, then this is hardly the deep background search you'd like to present it as. All that's been displayed is an apparent tendency on your part to go off half-cocked. If that's the degree of interest that earns someone a stalker label in your lexicon, then you're being stalked by a great many people in your mind.


Originally posted by masonwatcher

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
He didn't deceive you. He was quite straightforward as to the origin of the information. He only suggested that had he been of a mind to, he could have let you take the bait like a trout and in fact, you would have.


He was quite straightforward in his agenda, deception. He harvested my postings, recycled it and passed off as ominous knowledge. It was shocking as it was meant to be.

In the face of Freemasonry, we are all trouts ready to be skinned.


And yet again, HE DID NOT DECEIVE YOU! Repeating a lie doesn't make it truth. You took his minor efforts to be "ominous knowledge". That response was yours and yours alone. Anyone else looking at that information about themselves would have plumbed their recollection to see if they themselves had posted said "ominous knowledge".


Originally posted by masonwatcher

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Originally posted by JoshNorton

I mean, at first blush it was easy to believe I was part of the gang stalking by my use of such knowledge, when in fact, it was your own paranoia which lead you to jump to that conclusion.


If gangstalking doesn't make you paranoid, then you must be insane. A healthy amount of paranoia keeps you alive otherwise you would walk out into traffic without looking all the time.


Paranoia and common sense are far from the close relatives you would make them out to be.


Originally posted by masonwatcher

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Pretty thin line between a claim and an insinuation. In any case, your "claim" of Mason stalking is pretty wafer-thin stuff if it's of the same value as your concerns about JN's accessing information about you.


Not really. The internet allows for free exchange of information. At the time of JD's deception, I surmised that he may have access to a Masonic stalking forum with all the victims photographs and personal details plastered all over the place. Is there such a forum?


So you preferred to go off the deep end rather than looking for your answer in the shallow end of the pool. Again, your choice. And I suspect that no matter what I reply about "a Masonic stalking forum", you won't be happy because in your universe, it exists. Ergo, anyone contradicting you is part of the "Masonic stalking forum", something along the lines of the first rule of fight club.


Originally posted by masonwatcher

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Re; hoisted by ones own petard

Hmmm....interesting. Doesn't seem to correlate with any definition here. Perhaps you could provide a link to some reputable source that uses it in the manner you refer to.


I know what is the literal definition.


Dictionary and conventional use. Use it in a different manner and people will look at you as if you're off your nut.


Originally posted by masonwatcher
But I also imparted my take on how masons attack an individual by weaponising their own deeds against them. A different take on being hoisted by one's on petard when the pertard is not a grenade but a shield or any other defensive devise.


I'm sorry but your analogies are getting progressively more obtuse.




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


As normal individuals such as you and your masonic brethren descend into personal abuse. I mean, it's the least I can expect having suffered your white glove treatment.

In a democracy, it is okay to question institutions but this is evidently something not countenanced by masonic fanatics. As individuals you are brainwashed and institutionalised to the extent that you will not accept that you have members that embark up on organised stalking, paedophilia, murder, embezzlement and probably worse. Your response to these allegations are always;

A. You are crazy/paranoid/delusional
B. A person has to be in good standing before being accept as a mason
C. Finally, all groups have bad apples.

Why don't you get off your delusional high horses, engage your bloody all seeing eyes and hunt down the degenerates amongst you instead of splitting hairs with victims? After all if you take possession of all the 'good' Freemasonry does then you must accept the evils your members do otherwise you are a hypocrite unless of course that is a 'secret' masonic virtue.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
SPeaking for myself, I know 've given out more information than you have, and despite my own mild paranoia, my first thoughts would be someone pulled it from a web search.
My age, gender, color, general background history, work status, and number of family members can all be pulled up here from a search on ATS.
You keeep showing individuals, who in some cases are seperated by many years. Yeah, I read the article about the jesters. I know as well that many other social groups, like the Elks or heck, even the boyscouts, have groups or individuals who have been caught and proven of crimes.
Does that make them all evil? No. It means people have the capability of being evil, no matter what they are involved with.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


In a democracy, it is okay to question institutions but this is evidently something not countenanced by masonic fanatics.

Here's a little bit of news for you as you seem not to be aware of it. Masonry has a longer history of democracy than most (if not all) democratic countries. You don't seem to appreciate that democracy involves contradicting opinions and while I uphold your right to say what you will, that does not mean that I have to remain silent when your 'experience' is at such variance with mine (and I'd venture any other Mason on the board).


Originally posted by masonwatcher
As individuals you are brainwashed and institutionalised to the extent that you will not accept that you have members that embark up on organised stalking, paedophilia, murder, embezzlement and probably worse.

All the allegations you're citing are rather beyond the pale within ANY group, Masonic or otherwise. And one needn't be brainwashed or institutionalised to take exception to one person attempting to be judge, jury and executioner for an entire group, especially when that person has served up an rather thin gruel of 'proof'. You clearly have an axe to grind and I'm quite certain that nothing that I or any other person here (whether Mason or not) will disabuse you of this notion of yours. So be it. But don't expect lies to be met with silence.


Originally posted by masonwatcher
Your response to these allegations are always;

A. You are crazy/paranoid/delusional
B. A person has to be in good standing before being accept as a mason
C. Finally, all groups have bad apples.

Because A often turns out to be the case although there's an added twist in the form of those who have a vendetta. B is true in that Masonry isn't just a 'pony-up-your-initiation-fee-and-you're-in' kind of group. Typically, you're a known quantity to at least 1 member of the Lodge which serves as an initial filter of less-than-desirables, followed by a Committee of Investigation. Statistically, this should weed out any potential bad apples. But yes, C does very occasionally happen. But that doesn't make C representative of Masonry as a whole any more than any other identifiable group can honestly be taken to task for the failings of one person.


Originally posted by masonwatcher
Why don't you get off your delusional high horses, engage your bloody all seeing eyes and hunt down the degenerates amongst you instead of splitting hairs with victims?

Oh goody! A witch hunt! On your word alone! Won't this be fun? Because we all know how effective witch hunts and Inquisitions are, now don't we? Better the Napoleonic Code in your eyes?


Originally posted by masonwatcher
After all if you take possession of all the 'good' Freemasonry does then you must accept the evils your members do otherwise you are a hypocrite unless of course that is a 'secret' masonic virtue.

Because here's a clue for you. The good is done by the vast majority who call themselves Masons and who by their actions have earned the right to call that good theirs. What ill may have been done by a Mason isn't done in the name of Masonry and to tar-and-feather the reputation of a group for the actions of an individual reeks of agenda.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I am pretty sure the sign on the door said "Attack Masons with anything you want and just keep egging it on.

You are just baiting us and making us play your games, whatever kind of twisted games you are playing.

Get it through your head.

1- masons aren't stalking you

2 - masons don't know who you are

3 - Stop making outlandish, libelous and slanderous accusations about an organization that you have proven you know NOTHING about.

I am so damn sick of 'let's jump on the masons because they aren't allowed to fight back'.

This forum should NOT be for prosyletizing or recruiting, and I damn sure shouldn't be for libelous accusations and indictment without reason of Freemasonry vis a vis stalking you and murdering people.

Just please stop it. Go away. If you don't have some valid question or conspiracy theory we can research here besides all the tripe you are spewing then I ask you to go dump it somehwere else. (as an ATS member, not a mason)



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


"I am so damn sick of 'let's jump on the masons because they aren't allowed to fight back'."

No, but they do tend to clump around on the threads where they are mentioned in an unfavourable light. They do fight back - online, just like all of us.

By saying "allowed to fight back'." whilst doing so online, one wonders if you are actually talking about Literally fighting Back. As in the stalking/murder/death/pain type of "allowed to fight back'." that actually happens in reality.....


They then stay on it until it dies or the OP gives up and leaves.

SSecrecy is Repugnant.

I find the best place for people who wish to be part of a secretive group is my ignore list - It's where I keep my masons, but this limit of ten is really forcing me to make some tough calls, but at least it is a secret
and it is a group.



[edit on 18-8-2008 by TruthTellist]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
As a long time ATS lurker and someone who is not a mason and doesn't know any (although I'm sure given their numbers, someone in my life is a mason), its threads like this that give proof beyond any doubt that the masons are not up to anything sinister. Here we have someone basically claiming the masons are involved in "gang stalking" and nothing less than torture and murder, with other members egging the OP on and trying to relate the masons to the SS - and the masons here respond with poise and politeness.

It seems as though the character required to become a mason is quite resilient against the character assassination attempts of quite a few people. I congratulate those in this thread and others that keep throwing baseless accusations at the masons - all you are doing is causing people to decide against you and believe in what the masons say.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Masons are not after you. We could care less about you other than if we ran across you broke down on the side of the road one of us would most likely stop and see if we could help you out. We don't have meetings about our next stalking victem. You either think an awfull lot of yourself or you truely are a freakin wacko. You pick. Choice A or choice B. Notice there is no choice C. We come to this forum to dispel outright lies. If you are so sure that we are pedofiles and such, then join a lodge, become a master mason, and travel around to different lodges to see if there is a hidden agenda. >SNIP< Mod edit.

Please review- Courtesy is mandatory.

[edit on 8/18/2008 by yeahright]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Nice little hornet's nest I stirred up yesterday. So let's bring it back around... the title of this thread is "Why do Masons always ask for evidence when it's in front of them?"

I think I've successfully demonstrated to you what jumping to conclusions without examining evidence can lead to. You were willing to believe I was either party to, or in cahoots with those you believe are gang stalking you when that simply wasn't true. If I hadn't stood up to your accusations, you would continue to believe that. In defending myself, I showed you evidence which you admit is valid. And though you question my motives, I've done you no harm.

I am unfamiliar with the principles of British law, but in the US the underlying theory is "innocent until proven guilty". We demand proof, and that burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. When blanket statements are made about Masons, it's not unreasonable for them to ask for evidence of those claims made against them. People willing to accept those accusations as gospel without even looking for evidence are at the very least going to be missing key pieces of the puzzle, and at the very most are going to be completely and utterly wrong in their assertions.

[edit on 8/18/2008 by JoshNorton]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join