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: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Here is another example. If you will direct your attention to: www.abovetopsecret.com...

More than 3/4 of the way down the page, you will find this from one of my posts:


SHOW ME THE LINKS from 2000/2001 where people said the mad-cow disease was cause for concern here in the United States.


Here is the response from www.abovetopsecret.com...


Just for the fun of it I thought I would look for something about mad cow disease from the time frame given. It took 14 seconds but all I could find were these hundred or so from the late nineties.

mad cow disease archive
The link in the original quote goes to topics.nytimes.com... est

The headlines talk about what is occurring in Europe and Britain. There is one headline about the United States. Here is the headline


U.S. Officials Confident That Mad Cow Disease of Britain Has NotOccurred Here

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
Published: March 27, 1996

Federal officials are confident that the mad cow disease found in Britain has not occurred in the United States and that existing policies are adequate to protect the beef supply. ...


That is two examples of this issue. How many more are needed before a penalty is applied for hoaxing?




posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
There is also an article in the NYTimes link discussing a lawsuit against Oprah Winfrey for slandering the U.S. beef industry over concerns about "mad cow disease" in 1996. Which suggests that long before 2000, at least one fairly prominent person expressed the view that mad cow disease would be a concern here.

Plus, one can argue that the fact that they felt the need to publish articles establishing the safety of U.S. beef is evidence in itself that the U.S. people were expressing concerns. One doesn't generally publish an article reassuring people that there's nothing to worry about if they weren't yet aware of the issue.

I didn't follow the CERN-related link, because I wouldn't recognize a singularity if it bit me. But that abstract does suggest that they're discussing theories about the beginning of the universe and how to research them, which could include what's going on at CERN.

Is this really about lying or is this about people saying that Titor wasn't a true time traveller?

[edit on 10/2/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I had to jump in here to say that it could just be a matter of oppinion. I have some tales that would curl your hair, all true but you would probably never believe me...



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I am for the "penalty for lying" idea. It promotes honest talk and removes certain subjects from coming up that have long been debunked. For instance, "Al Gore said he invented the Internet". That's a lie.

Things of that nature only hurt conversation and can be easily avoided.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
It would be difficult to determine if the user is lying or just misinformed.

Case in point, when people post a misquote, it can either be due to them intentionally posting a misquote they know is wrong, or maybe they are only posting a misquote they have read elsewhere and have not done enough research to know if it is true or not.

Other times, they may just be using sarcasm.

After all, sarcasm is hard to detect on the net.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

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.




I agree with your statement about the punishment going both ways. What I want to address though is this claim. This is a pretty bold claim. I'm sure it has been discussed on ATS a couple of times. Could you please provide some links to this source? I am being forthright here. If this is true then it would bolster quite a few CT claims.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
So where is the defining line between honesty and lies? Who has the qualifications and experience to make an absolutely correct assesment to make the call and invoke a penalty?

He who has not sinned cast the first stone.

I seriously doubt anyone on this planet could qualify.

Cheers!!!



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Sarcasm, though a beautiful thing, is hard to detect.

Need sarcasm emoticons.....


[edit on 10/2/2008 by skeptic1]

[edit on 10/2/2008 by skeptic1]

[edit on 10/2/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Here is a real problems with all of this..

To substantiate something told is a lie, you must PROVE that the person making the statement KNOWS that what they are posting is false.

Just because you, I and a hundred people know it is false, does not PROVE the person making the statement does as well.

I run into this frequently in court and if you are going to penalize someone, you better be able to prove they knew it was false.

Now how do you suppose we do that?

Semper



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Repeat offenses I would assume. I think that's what most people want.

I don't know how plausible the whole idea is, but it would be beneficial if it worked.

Also, it would have to be a provable lie. Not only would the person have to repeat the offense multiple times, but it would have to be a known lie. It would have to be proven to be untrue and documented. Definitely not debatable.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Define lieing for me? Some people live a lie. My ex girlfriend kids herself into believing she's a size ten when she's every inch a size twelve. She believes it and if she said as much on these forums would you deduct points. What I'm trying to say is one persons lies is another persons fact! I listen to those who believe they've been abducted and although decorum dictates I can't come out and call them a liar, unbalanced, or just plain wrong,I cannot bring myself to believe their stories. So someone is lieing. Who do you deduct points from? The person who creates the lie? The person who loses his or her rag and posts a cruel or rude reply? Or perhaps you could just go on deducting points from anyone who dared try and enter the debate? Its a ridiculous idea that should be confined to the trashcan marked, Very Bad Ideas.
If you started doing this you would kill off any and all constructive arguments on ATS all for the sake of those sad few who either knowingly, or misguidedly, try to get us all nibbling on their red herrings.. .



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
Also, it would have to be a provable lie. Not only would the person have to repeat the offense multiple times, but it would have to be a known lie. It would have to be proven to be untrue and documented. Definitely not debatable.


Would any of the instances cited earlier in this thread count as a provable lie? Or even a lie at all?

I just don't see this working. There are already guidelines in place to deal with someone who comes on and posts a made up story - it gets the [HOAX] tags. I assume the same would go if someone posted a made up debunking story.

Why can't we just call people on it if we think they've lied and leave it at that? If they post a link that says something different than they claim, then post that information in the thread. If they've done it repeatedly, say that, and link to the other place(s) where they've been corrected for the same mistake.

As far as I can tell, no one has even been able to come up with a case where punishment would be applicable (other than the "ATS is a CIA front" in this thread). Maybe because of the nature of ATS, debunkers don't have to resort to falsifying information -- they (we) can just cite mainstream media.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I've seen lying on both sides of the fence-skeptics as well as believers. It's very frustrating catching the same people/person lying and misrepresenting their posts over and over.
I think the worst of them are the ones who knowingly misquote or misrepresent posts. What I mean by that is that they will take a phrase or sentence out of a paragraph that seemingly backs their argument until you read the surrounding text and as soon as you do, you find out that once again, their pulling quotes out to deliberately change the meaning of the article or text. I can't stand these people !

That being said, what has been proposed amounts to a witch hunt. I think that they will weed themselves out over time through the ignore button and through bans due to off topic post complaints. In the meantime, I think that due to the wide latitude of freedom ATS gives us in our posts, we must tolerate but remember who the individuals are and take them for what they are.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   
So if we catch these false info agents and they get tagged can we do the same with politicians?..Like a kick me sign only better?....



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
dam ya know the TITLE of this thread alone brings me to reply ASAP....

I mean.....I just saw it and I refuse to read anything at all until I reply.... and here it is.

I am honest to a fault and make myself look doofus over and over by refusing to say things just because they might make me look cool.
Over and over I take the stand to look retarded and claim my truth than say what seems to be the popular thing to speculate.....

I think out right LIARS and fakers should be banned once found out...I mean,....what else can you really do?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
...Is this really about lying or is this about people saying that Titor wasn't a true time traveller?

[edit on 10/2/08 by americandingbat]


Do you people even bother to read the posts? Or do you just take out of them what you want to take out of them?

For the record, I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT TITOR WAS A TIME TRAVELER. In fact, here is what I said in the original thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

...I don't believe he was a time traveler, but he certainly knew or guessed a great number of things very, very correctly. ...


You will find many times where I repeat just such a phrase.

How can you POSSIBLY suggest that someone is merely "mistaken" when they say "Here is the proof for XYZ", and then they post a link that has NOTHING to do with the question at hand? If that is not the definition of a misleading post, then I don't know what is. If the poster in question put in a correction saying "oops, wrong link. Here is the correct one", that would be understandable.

As it is, this website is going down the path of GLP, which is not a good thing.

If what I am saying is wrong, then show me. Show me the excerpt from the link in question that says that CERN is talking about creating microsingularities.

This is not a case of he said/she said. If, anywhere in that link, there is even a HINT of CERN creating microsingularities, someone show me.

If there isn't, how can it be be said that the person is "mistaken" or even drawing inferences from the text? That's like a person linking to an article talking about how to build bridges and going "From this, we can deduce that cows like to eat grass." (yes, that example is a little extreme).

Someone show me the text from that article that talks about CERN creating microsingularities, and I will shut up about about it.

As it is, you have moderators that seem, in this specific case, to be showing partiality in not following their own terms and conditions for use of the site.

There is a clear-cut case of someone posting misleading information, and no one seems to care, because it's in a kooky thread, and the owners of the site have already labeled it a hoax.

So, can we infer from this that it is ok to post misleading information in a "hoax" thread? If so, how can anyone be penalized at all in a hoax thread, as they are posting misleading information in a hoax thread?

This has NOTHING to do with whether Titor was a time traveler, a hoaxer, or a skateboarding lesbian nun on crack with homicidal tendencies. NOTHING. It has EVERYTHING to do with people who are skeptics being allowed to KNOWINGLY violate the T&C with impunity. This has EVERYTHING to do with applying the terms & conditions the same to everyone, skeptic and "kook" alike.

Compare what is going on here with the political threads, and how quick and harsh the owners cracked down on the rumors and innuendo, EVEN WHEN THEY WERE LABELED AS SUCH. (note: I do not recall posting in any of the political threads, except to say that both parties are the same, and there is no difference between them.)

Have you noticed that no mods replied to my question on clarification as to what is considered "misleading"? Not even a "we need to get back with you on that"?

I gave two hypothetical examples, asking if these would be considered misleading, and the subject was avoided. Now, one could believe that the mods just haven't been back to this thread. Except that I sent a U2U to the mod that replied on this thread asking for clarification. Why no response, not even a "we'll get back with you"?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Do you people even bother to read the posts? Or do you just take out of them what you want to take out of them?


I have read all the posts in this thread, and the posts on the last 3 pages of the thread that you linked to as an example. As I said before, I have not read all two hundred some pages of that thread.

The thing is, that for the purposes of this thread, what you think Titor was or wasn't is unimportant.


How can you POSSIBLY suggest that someone is merely "mistaken" when they say "Here is the proof for XYZ", and then they post a link that has NOTHING to do with the question at hand?


I am saying that the examples you point to do not seem to me to be of this type. The link about mad cow disease articles in the New York Times clearly shows that there was concern about the issue becoming a major problem in America. I don't know about the article about CERN, because 1) I don't know what a microsingularity is and 2) I'm not willing to pay for the article to find out if they're mentioned. What I can tell from it is that it's an abstract for an article about stuff like the big bang, so it doesn't seem improbable to me that microsingularities are mentioned, whatever they are. Why not just ask the person who linked the abstract to provide a quote from the article, since it is not freely available?


As it is, this website is going down the path of GLP, which is not a good thing.


I'll have to take your word for this, since I don't know what GLP is.


As it is, you have moderators that seem, in this specific case, to be showing partiality in not following their own terms and conditions for use of the site.


I'll leave this one to the mods. I don't see it, personally, but I could be wrong.


Have you noticed that no mods replied to my question on clarification as to what is considered "misleading"? Not even a "we need to get back with you on that"?

I gave two hypothetical examples, asking if these would be considered misleading, and the subject was avoided. Now, one could believe that the mods just haven't been back to this thread. Except that I sent a U2U to the mod that replied on this thread asking for clarification. Why no response, not even a "we'll get back with you"?


Maybe the mod just hasn't gotten around to it? Maybe they're all having a heated exchange on the subject in modspace and are waiting til the admins weigh in on the matter to say anything?

But didn't one of the mods make a post here about how hard it is to prove that someone is knowingly posting misleading or false information? I took that to mean that the poster would be penalized if it could be proved that they deliberately and knowingly posted lies, but that that was very hard to prove.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
...The thing is, that for the purposes of this thread, what you think Titor was or wasn't is unimportant. ...


Unfortunately, when someone says "Is this really about lying or is this about people saying that Titor wasn't a true time traveller?", it then most certainly DOES become an issue.


The link about mad cow disease articles in the New York Times clearly shows that there was concern about the issue becoming a major problem in America. ...


So, a headline that says " U.S. Officials Confident That Mad Cow Disease of Britain Has NotOccurred Here" (sic) is evidence that there is concern that the issue is going to become major?



By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
Published: March 27, 1996

Federal officials are confident that the mad cow disease found in Britain has not occurred in the United States and that existing policies are adequate to protect the beef supply. A meeting of 70 animal and public health experts convened by the United States Department of Agriculture reviewed current policies last week and concluded without recommending any further safeguards.

Nonetheless, the department said it would increase the number of cattle brains routinely tested for mad cow disease.

The chief reasons for confidence, Agriculture officials say, are that mad cow disease has never been identified in the United States and the incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, as the human version of mad cow disease is known, has remained unchanged since 1979. ...


Does that sound like concern that it is going to become an issue? Sounds like just the opposite to me.

Remember, the context of the quote was asking for links that show there was concern that mad cow was going to be epidemic here in the U.S.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealotDoes that sound like concern that it is going to become an issue? Sounds like just the opposite to me.

Remember, the context of the quote was asking for links that show there was concern that mad cow was going to be epidemic here in the U.S.


Right, and the link showed that it was of enough concern to the American people that the New York Times had published hundreds of articles about it. That sounds like concern.

And yes, on a conspiracy site at least (and among less paranoid folk too), when the government loudly proclaims that there is not and will not be a problem with something, that usually means that people perceive a problem.

An example: if you search the New York Times archives for articles on the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccination, you will probably come up with hundreds of articles, most of which support the official position that it is perfectly safe and effective.

To many, that suggests that someone is trying to cover their rear ends. Certainly it doesn't mean that no one is concerned about MMR vaccination. Probably it means that people are worrying loudly enough for the drug companies to start panicking.

Even setting aside the argument that the sheer number of articles makes it clear that people were worried about whether mad cow disease would be a huge problem here, what about the Oprah issue? That article was on the list too -- you can't just pull one article off a link of hundreds, say that it disagrees with the person's claim, and then accuse them of lying about what the link contained. The Oprah law suit makes it blatantly obvious that in 1996, someone in major media with a lot of sway in the American public's minds (for better or for worse) had warned us that mad cow disease could be a major issue for our beef industry.

I didn't even look at all the other articles, I'm sure that there are others that would support your opponent's claim as well. But I think the Oprah law suit is pretty much the perfect counterevidence to your claim that only Titor was talking about mad cow disease being a huge problem in the U.S. before 2001.

EDIT:

I want to come back and add this because I feel like we're losing sight of the forest. As I understand it, you want skeptics who deliberately and knowingly lie in a post to be penalized. I am in agreement with this, if you can prove that they knew they were posting a lie and went ahead and did so.

In the situations offered so far, it has been my opinion that the description of the links was not only not a lie, but not even misdirection. Maybe it's your stance that I am not reasonable, in which case there's no sense in me continuing to try and explain. But I think that if a case of alleged lying is so unclear that an uninvolved person can't see the lie, a penalty would be totally inappropriate.

It looks to me like the poster believes what he/she is arguing, and believes that he/she is providing valid evidence to support it. Whether the evidence does support it (and I'd say it does) is relatively unimportant. What matters is what that person believed the links showed when they posted.

[edit on 10/5/08 by americandingbat]




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join