When is there going to be a penalty for outright lying on this forum?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Gentlemen,

I am just curious as to when there is going to be a penalty for people who outright lie on this forum? Apparently, the penalty for "hoaxing" only is applied if you fall on the "pro conspiracy" side. Has anyone ever been banned for lying or hoaxing on the "anti conspiracy" side of things?

In the last two months, I have seen this happening more and more, and it's not coming from the "pro conspiracy" side.

A general example would be a pro-conspiracy guy says "XYZ happened, ABC said this and here are the links". A couple of posts, or pages, later, someone comes on and says "ABC never ever said this", and/or "XYZ never happened".

I am not talking about things that can be interpreted several ways. For example, take the recent Congressman's claim of "We're under martial law" quote. That could legitimately be interpreted as applying to just Congress, or as applying to the entire U.S. That type isn't what I am talking about.

It is not an "opinion" when you can directly quote the sources, and the source's validity are not in dispute.

I guess another way to put it would be this: If you are going to punish "pro conspiracy" liars and hoaxers (and I agree with this), when are you going to hold the "anti conspiracy" people to the same standards?

We all KNOW there are going to be direct disinfo agents posting of forums in the internet. THIS HAD BEEN ADMITTED BY OUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY.

Why are anti conspiracy types not being held to the same standard as pro conspiracy types?

Put another way: Why are the skeptics allowed to deliberately lie with no penalty?

(Note: I used the general phrase "anti conspiracy" and "pro conspiracy". You could just as easily replaced the word conspiracy in those terms with the words bigfoot, ufos, monsters, werewolves, vampires, or any other subject matter.)




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
It's a money making cia snoop shop ..why do you take it so seriously this ats was bought out years ago stop crying and find an honest source ...

Oh wait chair shuffle ... bring it on ...



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Well some theories would be hard to prove as lies, and I could see how some would easily cry foul! board politics! unfair! when the "hoaxers" were called out. Or if there was no real way to prove that it actually was a hoax (Titor)

But for obvious "hoaxes" (I'm looking at you, Moving Beer Can Guy) I agree there should be some retribution, though it's hard to actually make it stick for the guys that post a hoax and then run (Lego Time Machine, Boulder MD)



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ROO-meh
It's a money making cia snoop shop ..why do you take it so seriously this ats was bought out years ago stop crying and find an honest source ...

A fine example of a lie.

What shall be the penalty?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

Tar and feather?????




.....please???





posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


mmm...I don't know what you mean.

US Homeowners Soon To Be Evicted By Chinese Police Under New Law



www.whatdoesitmean.com...


Russian economists are expressing shock today over a new United States law that will allow for the first time in that nation’s history the police forces of a foreign Nation to have law enforcement powers over their citizens. These powers are specifically being granted to China’s State Security Police who operate under the Ministry of State Security for the Peoples Republic of China by the United States as a precondition for the Chinese Governments continued purchasing of US debt as the Americans continue their desperate actions to avert their total economic collapse.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
as you claim this ` skeptic lies ` are rampant - care to cite some ? just so we know you are not lying



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 


Chinese police???? AWESOME!

I must have missed that thread?? Where did you get that?

I wonder if they say "You pay you go.Now" I'm gonna laugh myself to sleep now.....



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Should and when a member post an outright lie either through intent or ignorance, I trust that there are many others who will expose it lickety split.

That is fact how we "deny ignorance."

I dare say that if that member does this more than a couple of times his/her credibility goes to pot. Though we are a big community most of us will remember those who choose to lie to us and their threads will go largely ignored. I think that is punishment enough.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by ROO-meh
It's a money making cia snoop shop ..why do you take it so seriously this ats was bought out years ago stop crying and find an honest source ...

A fine example of a lie.

What shall be the penalty?


REAL penalty suggestion.

Apply a tag to the name that shows him to others.

For example (and I will use my name for examples sake) Titorite and under that Spreader of Ignorance.....Or False info Agent.

Maybe a dock of points.

I totally agree with the suggestion. If someone makes a mistake that can be explained and corrected but I too have often come across those that just LIE outright or Attack my verifiable facts calling me the liar just for the sake of arguing as opposed to debate or conversation.

What do you all think of my punishment suggestion?


[edit on 30-9-2008 by titorite]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Free expression under the T&C is more important than witchhunting suspected liars. Decide for yourself whether there is a value in a post. Actions beyond that are unnecessary and will polarize the board.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
as you claim this ` skeptic lies ` are rampant - care to cite some ? just so we know you are not lying


UM I can! in this thread I post back to a person that insists I am dodging people addressing me. I explain to the fellow as tactfully as I can that just because my screen name shares a pronoun to describe those that believe the Titor story does not mean some one is addressing me.... Especially when the quote in question is:

" the Titorite's have been saying for years that there might be a woman President in 2009.... and so on"

Surely even those of limited I.Q.s are able to tell that the quote above does not address me.....anyways this is just one example of lying instigators.

Alex jones, 911, pick your topic and I can pick out the pseudo-skeptic that insists your facts are false despite verifiable Mainstream links!



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
There should be a button to "stone" liars to death..




posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by ROO-meh
It's a money making cia snoop shop ..why do you take it so seriously this ats was bought out years ago stop crying and find an honest source ...

A fine example of a lie.

What shall be the penalty?


The Overlord and most staff continually display mercy and patience. It has been witnessed by me and therefore is testified. The CIA don't have much mercy and patience. Therefore logical conclusion: ATS is not controlled by the CIA.

A warning flag for lying about the site would probably be gracious. A stern U2U might be in order. But a mean look from Springer might scare the critter outta here...



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


So a scarlet H then?


I don't know, I think that if someone is mislead, it can be different from outright lying. I mean someone may actually believe what they are saying. That does not make it a lie but someone who is misinformed.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by titorite
 


So a scarlet H then?


I don't know, I think that if someone is mislead, it can be different from outright lying. I mean someone may actually believe what they are saying. That does not make it a lie but someone who is misinformed.




Yes, that reminds me, under this proposed change, what are we to do with creationists?
Casting them out would be too ironic.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Well yeah that is what I meant about explanation and corrections. But what about purposeful misleading or outright lying. A good example of this is the strict moderation of the 911 board. So often people have posted specific facts about the incident only to be called a liar. Sometimes bogus counter information is offered up to contradict a statement like :" An open air fire can not reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel" then some pseudo-skeptic would counter with " Well the NICS says otherwise just look at building 7"

Personally I don't care what anyone says I want proof that an open air fire can melt steel. If it can we need to change our understanding of physics.

That is the type of deception that I would like to see addresseed.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
So often people have posted specific facts about the incident only to be called a liar. Sometimes bogus counter information is offered up to contradict a statement like :" An open air fire can not reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel" then some pseudo-skeptic would counter with " Well the NICS says otherwise just look at building 7"

Personally I don't care what anyone says I want proof that an open air fire can melt steel. If it can we need to change our understanding of physics.


That's not a lie, that's a difference of opinion. Since the particular conditions can't be replicated, there is no way to prove that it could or could not have happened.

And that sounds like real skepticism, not pseudo-skepticism. There is nothing wrong with being willing to look at the official story rather than dismiss it out of hand. Just because someone tells you that "they" want you to believe it happened one way, doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

As for the titorite/Titorites thing, it looked to me like the person debating you in that thread had simply assumed that you and the other Titor apologists all believed the exact same thing. That's a fallacy that you'll find everywhere: because I am vocal in my belief that "scientific" medicine is useful, I am often attacked as a supporter of Big Pharma. Just point out gracefully that they are arguing two separate issues, that you have no problem admitting that Titor was wrong about many predictions, but feel he was of service anyway.

-adb



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   




AND YOUR POST PROVES THE POINT!

UGH!

I am not gonna do this here! Their is a WHOLE CATEGORY for 911 conspiracy. Now your not lying yet but if we continue this conversation eventually we are gonna get around to the method of being able to prove the point. And then what? Will you stick to your guns about not being able to replicate the conditions or will you let it go....no....no no no.

Go spread you "opinions" and "facts" on the 911 forums.

This thread is about something else.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   




Actually, I stay out of the 911 forums because it's too emotional for me. You used the example, not me. Because I disagree with you (which you don't even know; I just said it couldn't be replicated), you accuse me of lying and disinformation. That is not "Denying Ignorance" and that is not what ATS is about.

My point in posting was that what you feel to be lies are not perceived as lies by all ATS members. Skepticism is a healthy part of learning. I am not going to deny anyone the right to claim that the airplanes we saw fly into the towers were holograms; but I claim the right to say that I think they weren't.

This thread is about lying, and what the penalty should or could be. You are making some pretty strong accusations (at least, I consider being called a liar and deliberate spreader of disinformation to be extremely offensive), based on nothing but a willingness to look at both sides of an issue.

I don't ask for the anti-vaccination folk to be penalized for spreading extremely inflammatory and deceptive information; I hope I will continue to be allowed to cite CDC statistics. Similarly, 911 skeptics have the right to cite government documents here. You don't have to believe them.

-adb



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def