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.

 

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

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
You also have to decide what is a lie here, sometimes.
There are several threads on ATS that are started where people strongly believe the OP... even if they are either lieing through their teeth or basing their beliefs off of a series of... dreams the night before.
Mark them and they cry foul, censorship, ect.
However, you let them be, they have their say, the agrees bay along with them, and then they burn out and wonder away.
Just in time for the next one, generally, but they generally don't last to long, and the ones that do serve more as a educational tool.
Besides, there are so many noncomformists here, some of them would try to get marked for the heck of it.




posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by titorite
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.

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.


-adb


No I did not accuse you of lying. If you read what I wrote and what you quoted you will find that I specifically wrote that YOUR NOT LYING YET! But you had to continue the line and you ended up lying... I did not till just know cast the accusation. One that you can verify by paying attention to the words here on thread.

This is not about disagreement. This is about people spreading ignorance through falsehoods such as the one I quote you from.

Also I never used the word "disinformation".


Mind your Ps and Qs when you go calling folks a liar. Lord knows I do.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
You are correct; I actually considered going back and editing that post, but thought you might respond and didn't want to cause one of those situations where the response no longer makes sense because the original post has changed.

You didn't accuse me of lying then. You projected that if we were to continue the conversation, I would have to either capitulate or lie. The fact that you had just screamed at me (which is what giant capital letters mean on a discussion board) for posting my concerns about the differences of opinion on what constitutes "bogus counter information" and should be considered "purposeful misleading or outright lying" put me on the defensive.

EDIT: honestly, I think this interchange in itself is proof that it is very difficult to know when someone is disagreeing vs. when someone is lying.

[edit on 9/30/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Bonfire Of The Mendacities

Our very first term/condition:


Originally posted by SimonGray
1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.

The key word in the first sentence is knowingly. Being wrong, mistaken or skeptical is not against the rules, only deliberate deception.

Proving intent can be difficult, and when there is any doubt, it must go to the member. There are cases where intent can be proven, however.

The classic example is the classic hoax. A (typically new) member starts a thread and makes extraordinary claims (usually involving some sort of personal experience) and optionally offers some sort of evidence to back up the claims.

If the testimony and/or evidence is later shown to be contrived, self-contradictory or logically impossible, then (barring some sort of unusual mitigating circumstance) it may be reasonable to conclude a hoax -- though the details vary and are important to making a clear determination of intent.

While it is true that some members may make false claims in refuting a "conspiracy theory", establishing intentional deceit is often more difficult, because we are all being lied to constantly via mass media.

To put it another way: if someone comes along, says he's an American citizen being spied on by the CIA in the U.S. and offers some dodgy pictures and forged documents to support his claim, he's hoaxing and deserves to be banned.

But if another member asserts his story can't be true because the CIA doesn't spy on American citizens, he's not necessarily lying (though definitely wrong) because it is supposedly illegal for the CIA to spy on Americans in the U.S.

We're all targets of mass brainwashing which is successful to some degree in each one of us.

Those of us who are the most brainwashed need ATS the most, so rather than suggest banning them, I suggest we try to help Deny Ignorance.

Just my tuppence.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I am all for denying ignorance. On the same token I would not mind those that spread it around being labeled as ignorance spreaders.... I mean if folks are not gonna pay attention or willingly make up stuff then it would be keen to know who does and who doesn't so that I could know who NOT to waste my time on.

By the way Haibane-renmei is super cool!



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite

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!


First of all, that is not a lie. And if you know anything about grammar, that apostrophe gives ownership to titorite, not many, one. So, I confused Titorite with Titorite and you want to call that a lie?

Wow, perhaps you need to explain the Alex Jones thing too since that man is a proven liar, what can your beef be there?

Perhaps there needs to be a penalty for lying about other posters in different threads when you think they will not stumble upon it. I invite anyone to go to that thread and see where I have lied. Disagree with me all you like and whatever, but I dare anyone to point out a lie from me there.

So perhaps coming here and calling me a liar is a lie punishable by tagging your Avatar with something like "whiner"

[edit on 9/30/08 by MorningStar8741]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


The thread I linked is there. Anyone that wants to read may. Now your just trolling me. I only gave one example. In the thread I cited you have offered many more. You need a special tag MorningStar8741 because you are such a special person.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Lying is ignorance mine Fuhrer, send them to the front with an empty rifle and shoot them in the back if they retreat.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by titorite
 


So a scarlet H then?


I


good idea, i like the scarlet H

an example, see www.abovetopsecret.com... which blatantly deserves a mocking red H stuck to the OPs name. Thing is, it will deter them from posting BS in the future as they realise no one will believe their lies. As it is, these nuggets can wait a week, post some other crap and it might get swallowed up and taken in - if they get one then people know they are liars already..and if its harsly applied they can always appeal

I vote for the red H idea admin!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:26 AM
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 ...

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


Oh wow - did you decide to come on this thread and give a living example of what an outright lie is so we could debate whether you get penalized as a real-time example?

I think you should...but I'm just one person.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
...you have no problem admitting that Titor was wrong about many predictions, but feel he was of service anyway.

-adb


And this right here is a prime example. Without debating this point, Titor wasn't wrong about "many predictions". All the "he was a hoaxer" people point to the same two predictions he got wrong. How does two constitute a "many"?

Examples abound. Up until now, I've merely been content to point out the lie in the thread itself. I think I shall now begin keeping track of them in this thread.

Again, I am NOT talking about differences of opinion. I can tolerate that, not matter how wrong you are.


Here is another type that just occured to me. Someone saying "Here is the link to what I was saying", then you follow the link, and it says exactly OPPOSITE of what the person was saying.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
...But if another member asserts his story can't be true because the CIA doesn't spy on American citizens, he's not necessarily lying (though definitely wrong) because it is supposedly illegal for the CIA to spy on Americans in the U.S.
...

Ok, now supposing at the end of your link, there is a paragraph that says (just for the sake of argument here). " 'The CIA absolutely spies on Americans, legally or illegally', CIA Executive Mr. Smith stated to Faux News Journalist Mr. Jones on X/Y/Z date."

What then? Do you say he is purposely lying in our hypothetical situation?



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Bonfire Of The Mendacities

Our very first term/condition:


Originally posted by SimonGray
1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.

The key word in the first sentence is knowingly. Being wrong, mistaken or skeptical is not against the rules, only deliberate deception.

Proving intent can be difficult, and when there is any doubt, it must go to the member. There are cases where intent can be proven, however.



Let me repeat for those following along at home: knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate . I do not take issue with someone being wrong, mistaken, or skeptical.

I do, however, take issue to someone deliberately saying "This link says X", and in the article they link to, it says exactly the opposite of "X".

Is this being "knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate"?



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealotA
nd this right here is a prime example. Without debating this point, Titor wasn't wrong about "many predictions". All the "he was a hoaxer" people point to the same two predictions he got wrong. How does two constitute a "many"?


A prime example of what? Outright lying? Without debating whether Titor was or was not a hoaxer, I was suggesting a way that titorite (the ATS member) could address people who seemed to believe that everyone who thinks Titor was not a hoaxer necessarily believed everything he said, or even that they all had the same belief. I said that titorite could say Titor was mistaken, not that I know Titor was mistaken.

I didn't know until I followed titorite's link who Titor was. Until I joined ATS I had never even heard the name; as of yesterday all I knew was that he was some guy who a lot of people refer to and some cite as an example of a hoax. I had no idea about the time travel, posting to discussion boards, predictions, etc. It's not one of my conspiracy-related interests. But that thread was given as an example of what titorite saw to be lying or spreading bad information, so I read the last two pages (the one he/she linked and the one before that for context -- I did not read all 263 or so pages) and based my reply on what I saw there.

So, you think that I should be branded a liar based on what? I'll be honest, I have no problem being this thread's example of what you object to. But I don't think it'll serve you very well.

If someone posts a link that says something different than what they say it says, why not just point that out? It may be that they misunderstood something in the page cited, or they didn't read the whole thing, or you misunderstood their point. But if they actually used a source that contradicts their own argument, use it against them. Branding them a liar in that case is overkill.

If a skeptic makes up a study and refers to it to try to debunk a conspiracy theory, that would be a hoax and would, I hope, be dealt with by mods and admins.

I'm curious: how many penalties for "outright lying" do you think I should have racked up in this thread?

[edit on 9/30/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:15 PM
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?


Change his avatar to a pic of Bush for a month....
(i mean George Bush just incase you were wondering lol).



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


Actually, I came to this thread because of the title and how surprised was I to see myself mentioned as a liar. You can call me all kinds of things and accuse me of many things. For the most part you may be right. Unfortunately for you, LIAR is not one of them. Trolling is not either. Since I am not allowed to read threads you write in, even about me specifically without being called a troll, fine. I am done here. I do not need to read anymore and I refuse to try to make my case. If people are so interested as to read it and see what a liar I am. They are going to return a little more than dissappointed as well as confused about your idea of what the word liar means. Have fun, the thread is all yours. Sure hope you dont happen into one I posted in first, or else I guess that will make you the troll. Have fun, kids.

And as for being on topic. This is the prime example right here. You have one person lying about someone else lying. Perhaps he is just ignorant and does not know what word to use but in any case, he is saying it and it is not true. Do you expect the mods to go now and read all of each of our posts to determine who the real liar is to give them a special tag? It may be a cute idea but it is far from practical or even reasonable in a place like this. If someone lies, call them on it. Seems pretty simple to me.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenflt

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?


Change his avatar to a pic of Bush for a month....
(i mean George Bush just incase you were wondering lol).



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
was an ill thought out comment half tongue in cheek but still wrong

apologies to Owners,Staff,Mods and all ATS members and visitors.

punishment as per consensus.




[edit on 30/9/08 by ROO-meh]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr. Secret
There should be a button to "stone" liars to death..




Oooohhhh! A "fling poo" button! Lol.

Sorry. I love the idea though. Now I am going to laugh myself to sleep.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Here is another example:

www.abovetopsecret.com... down about half way. Here is the entire post.



Another 18 seconds and I got this article from 1999 explaining the potential for micro singularities being created at CERN.

www.iop.org...

This is almost too easy.



Now, here is the text from his link



Abstract. This paper considers the evolution of the relation between gravitational theory and cosmology from the development of the first simple quantitative cosmological models in 1917 to the sophistication of our cosmological models at the turn of the millenium. It is structured around a series of major ideas that have been fundamental in developing today's models, namely: 1, the idea of a cosmological model; 2, the idea of an evolving universe; 3, the idea of astronomical observational tests; 4, the idea of physical structure development; 5, the idea of causal and visual horizons; 6, the idea of an explanation of spacetime geometry; and 7, the idea of a beginning to the universe. A final section considers relating our simplified models to the real universe, and a series of related unresolved issues that need investigation.


Does that sound like there is ANYTHING that has to do with CERN creating Microsingularities?

This is not a case of "differences of opinion". This is a case of outright LYING, hoping no one will follow the link and actually read what he linked to.



[edit on 1-10-2008 by sir_chancealot]




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join