Please tell me when the exception started proving the rule. Every news group receives thousands of leads everyday. They then have to go through all of these and find out which ones are legitimate and which ones are not. They are human so it is only expected for a mistake to slip through every once and a while. This doesn't mean that they haven't thoroughly checked every other story just because they slip up every one in a million times.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Comments like those made by ABC are nothing new. Conspiracy researchers were making similar remarks back in the 60s and 70s. I really think people are making much too big a deal about this. And in fact these responses show exactly what the article was saying. People are taking an insignificant thing like this article and blowing it up into a whole conspiracy against ATS. That right there is paranoia.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Xcalibur254]

You are so right - it is extremely interesting that the media proclaims people who visit conspiracy sites are paranoid, and then ATS members turn it into a vast plot against ATS and them.

Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?

The media has correctly pointed out that there is a larger percentage of mentally ill people on conspiracy sites. Its just the facts. People have chosen to take that and blow it up into a enormous conspiracy against them, proving the media correct.

I think the number of CIA moles in here just doubled...

This is not a one line. A one liner might go: "My girls so fat I met her at the MAcy's Parade she was wearing ropes..."

Originally posted by Yoda411

So called experts may be a dime a dozen but Psychologists require at the very minimum a PhD. So what are your credentials to question them?

In your opinion does a person need credentials to question another person?

Under the authority of psychiatry, some individuals hold beliefs which are [in fact] delusional and promoted by some on ATS.

Under the authority, huh?

I see..............

Originally posted by interestedalways

Originally posted by Yoda411

So called experts may be a dime a dozen but Psychologists require at the very minimum a PhD. So what are your credentials to question them?

In your opinion does a person need credentials to question another person?

Under the authority of psychiatry, some individuals hold beliefs which are [in fact] delusional and promoted by some on ATS.

Under the authority, huh?

I see..............

That is clearly not what I am saying. A person needs credentials to be a reliable source of information.

I was asked under what authority can you separate someones beliefs from delusions, and it is under the authority of psychiatry.

au⋅thor⋅i⋅ty
   /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

Originally posted by Yoda411

I was asked under what authority can you separate someones beliefs from delusions, and it is under the authority of psychiatry.

au⋅thor⋅i⋅ty
   /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

The right to control.

That is the part of authority that concerns me.

Edit to trim quote per T&C.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by interestedalways]

Originally posted by interestedalways

Originally posted by Yoda411

I was asked under what authority can you separate someones beliefs from delusions, and it is under the authority of psychiatry.

au⋅thor⋅i⋅ty
   /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

The right to control.

That is the part of authority that concerns me.

Edit to trim quote per T&C.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by interestedalways]

i agree totally. I in no way intend to turn this into a political thread but we have to consider the current state of affairs. we have Bush et al in power for such a long time and then the youth of the country gave their support en mass to obama - which regardless of what people may say is a big ideology change compared to the current president.

All of a sudden we started seeing things in the msm undermining the younger population and their beliefs. two examples are the ABC thing being discussed and also gov palin's remarks about bloggers being kids in pyjamas.

we may be seeing the beginnings of a campaign that tells the masses that ATS and other conspiracy theorists are crazies and their rants should just be ignored b/c they are immature and mentally unstable. We should instead listen to credible sources like the real news outlets like cnn and fox etc.