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.

 

A Conspiracy Against ATS?

page: 17
132
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 




Sigh, I was in a direct discussion with the site owner, the questions asked were to be answered by the site's owner personally, I didn't ask them to be answered by someone else.

It's probably very hard to understand.


I must be totally out in the ozone layer here..totally out of reason, logic and understanding. I thought this is for what we have U2U or e-mail?
Is this not so??

No you did not ask them to be answered by someone else...correct. But you posted them in a room where others could see them and are then wont to take offense when someone does. Yet contrarily ..you embrace those on this board who support your arguments. That is very strange behavior and also as stated ..intolerant. Suggest you make your points in private e-mail or U2U format to Skeptic Overloard if you do not want other replys to your posts. Otherwise you run the risk of totally showing your intolerance and weakening the points you are desiring to strengthen concerning being tolerant about drug topics. Your passions are working against you here Enigmania. Some people can see this...like working a rubicks cube..they can see around the corners in three dimensions.
Hope this helps you.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by enigmania
 


My personal views on why a support the Ban does not need to reflect the admins views on the Ban. Everything posted on the previous page is my opinion.

However, the word "Revenue" directly translates into amount of people learning about conspiracy-theory, UFOs, etc. Actively promoting illegal activity to be featured here is something that would seriously undermine the validity of conspiracy- and UFO Topics.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by Skyfloating]





Allow the discussion of illegal activities and see your website disappear from google indexes, loose all its family-minded
membership and revenue.


Sounds more like an observation to me.

And we all know the definition of revenue.

At this point your just doing damage control.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 





It's just another point to think about. If they want data/info on what members think, what they value and what their stance is on Gov issues/president, they just have to login, post up a thread on data collection needed for the day, throw in a few comments to get the flames roll'n and wala! Then it's just a matter of copy and paste comments.

As for the hard core breaching of the T&C, it might be gov, but, highly doubtful, seems more like disgruntled groups of ppl or single elements (Crackers, pissed off members, ect) the question(s) to ask is: *If it is an alpha agency, is the data collection harmful? hmmm...not in that it brings down the site, but, it certainly brings out our core values.


The reason I'm here is to gather info...

The reason for gathering info... this could be multi-motivated.
What to do with info?
Pragmatical reason: Define and thus deal with a certain phenomena. (debunk it)

The very idea of ATS is to bring to light (by simple exposure and analysis) certain phenomena, or to shed different kind of light to a "known" phenomena and turn it into a different kind of phenomena (like 9/11 theories, each of them is a phenomena on its own right).

What can easily be distinguished from the analytical approach, no matter how shallow or deep it is, is READING certain meaning into a phenomena, which is an attempt of indoctrination - and that is, I believe, something that ATS should not allow and step in with the appropriate measures.

And what would some alphabet agency be interested in gathering from ATS?
Exactly this kind of "activity" of (political) agitation and directing people into certain mode/place/time of action.

I believe this is what ATS is trying to prevent.

"Hot" topics are those topics which involve agitation beyond interest on shedding light to a certain phenomena (Israel, religion, elections, drugs...).
Because of highly opposed opinions, the threshold of tolerance is under strain and discussion soon turns into a polemics (Gr. polemos = war).

This perverts the purpose of a forum of this kind.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


If I were the site owner I´d be much more into revenue than they are. Revenue is required to maintain the site for free.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Outer space even.

I'm asking the site owner questions about his site.

Why do you think it's perfectly logical for you to bud in?

edit to add: Why do you feel called upon to speak for the man?

[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
So, what is it? I tend to believe the mod over the site owner.
Revenue does play a part in all this, like I said before.

If you refuse to read and/or believe what I post... what is the point of your continued participation here? It feels more and more like the purposeful disruption described in the opening post.

My comments are clearly laid out...

Update 1

However, as has been stated by myself and nearly every other staff member responding in this thread, we fully agree there are important conspiracy and cover-up issues that are part of the universe of drug topics, and it's unfortunate that those discusses devolve into unproductive chaos.


Update 2

Today, it's unlikely that our entire domain would receive an "automatic score" that would harm access to the entire site...


Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com

Our intent here is to operate a free and open discussion venue, where civility and decorum rule the day, so that the focus is on important and provocative issues, not each other.


Freedom Of Speech, ATS, and Ending The Eternal September

"Limitations" (on freedom of speech) is not the appropriate word, and (no offense to NovusOrdoMundi, but using his words to establish an example) in my opinion represents an increasingly common misconception or selfish interpretation of what free expression really means. The appropriate word, or better yet, the ideal state-of-mind, is that of responsibility. Free expression is not a license to offend, obfuscate, or lie; it's an opportunity to stimulate, challenge, and transform.


The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites
(Back in 2007, automatic filtering was once a concern.)

This issue is the potential negative effect certain drug-related phraseology will have on our domain as automatic filtering is applied to individual pages as well as an aggregate domain score for AboveTopSecret.com. Our founder, Simon Gray, is now a victim of this, as his employer chose to initiate such filtering, and he cannot visit the site or receive site email from work.

(But 18 months later, with higher traffic and a bigger footprint, it is not.)

Over the past several months, we have adopted a more lax approach to the interpretation of these rules as they apply to drug-related topics because automatic filtering of our domain is not as much of a concern.


And finally, our Terms & Conditions have long since expressed our desire to place a limit on topics if we deem some topics are counterproductive to maintaining a civil community.
Terms & Conditions

The owners of The Above Network, LLC reserve the right to establish limits on topics that may be discussed if, in their opinion, the discussion of those topics attract an audience that is counterproductive to maintaining the ideals set forth in these Terms & Conditions.

We've made it clear, in the wide-wide open, for a very long time, that we may choose to limit certain topics that disrupt the civil online community we attempt to maintain.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Outer space even.

I'm asking the site owner questions about his site.

Why do you think it's perfectly logical for you to bud in?

edit to add: Why do you feel called upon to speak for the man?

[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]


Because you're asking questions on a publicly accessible forum maybe ? As opposed to a private, 1 on 1 conversation.

OOPS. Apparently I'm budding in now

Sorry, I should know my place



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Hm, ATS has attracted the attention of the Something Awful forums?

www.somethingawful.com...



Bumping this post and link because I think they're interesting and perhaps connected to the OP rather than to this peripheral definition of censorship issue.

I among others have noticed an increasing number of references to "conspiracy websites" in the mainstream media and even scholarly publications recently (say the last 6 to 9 months). Specifically, there has been an increase in the direct linkage of conspiracy theory and mental illness.

I'm tempted to see that as a reaction, conscious or unconscious, to a perceived threat. That conspiracy theory came out of the basement and tossed off its tinfoil helmets last year, and proved to have a pretty good grasp on the way the world really works. And the world is trying to sequester it again – this time not as eccentric and cute, but as schizophrenic and tragic or dangerous.

How does this relate to possible direct action by gangs of troublemakers against ATS?

Mostly because I suspect that in both cases – the juvenile behavior of the few "bad apples" here and the public media – there may be behind-the-scenes manipulation that the actual actors aren't even aware of.

It would be easy enough for someone to incite an "attack" on ATS among a group of bored forum browsers, without actually participating. And it would be easy enough for a news outlet owner to suggest conspiracy theory as a topic to write about.

Just some thoughts, and maybe a connection?

ps to enigmania: I think you have a debate set up already with intrepid, how about leaving the definition of censorship in that thread just so some of us can talk about the topic here?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


As long as you keep posting links to the T&C and stuff, and refuse to give me anwser to the questions I asked, and the statement I made about admitting to censorship, it is clear that I am definately making a point you can't or won't counter.

Congrats.

Deny Censorship is the new motto.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilBat

Just look at this topic alone, it was disrupted buy people back and forth over T&C, censorship, nothing to do with the topic They might not think is disruptive but I do, I'm a member here and I don't like the "We can say anything we want because of free speech", why not make a topic for it?



Sorry Nef, looks like another perfectly good thread has been derailed, despite best efforts.

We tried.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
and refuse to give me anwser to the questions I asked

As far as I can tell, I've addressed every point you've made. It's unfortunate that you don't accept logical common sense answers.

Do you have a specific example of a question or point for which you've not received a response from myself?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Outer space even.

I'm asking the site owner questions about his site.

Why do you think it's perfectly logical for you to bud in?


because of this as in my previous post, Enigmania.


No you did not ask them to be answered by someone else...correct. But you posted them in a room where others could see them and are then wont to take offense when someone does. Yet contrarily ..you embrace those on this board who support your arguments. That is very strange behavior and also as stated ..intolerant. Suggest you make your points in private e-mail or U2U format to Skeptic Overloard if you do not want other replys to your posts. Otherwise you run the risk of totally showing your intolerance and weakening the points you are desiring to strengthen concerning being tolerant about drug topics. Your passions are working against you here Enigmania. Some people can see this...like working a rubicks cube..they can see around the corners in three dimensions.
Hope this helps you.


It is perfectly logical when you are posting in the main rooms and not in U2U or private e-mail. Why would you think that posting in this room is some kind of Holy Ground Highlander?? That it is illogical to respond. Take it to e-mail or U2U if it is a private or personal dealing as you stated in a previous post. Otherwise everyone will see it and be wont to comment as have I done.

Are you not now attempting to censor me while bemoaning censorship?? Doesnt make good nonsense does it Enigmania???

I tried to tell you about your passions. You are once again showing your hand without thinking about it. Dude..you need some work and practice before taking on this topic of censorship.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 





You're simply refusing to be reasonable in the face of logic and common sense, aren't you?


No, I'm refusing to fall in line because you say so. What's reasonable to you is not reasonable to me.

Common sense tells me that what you guys are doing is censorship, by definition, no matter the reason.

If you would truly value logic and common sense you'd admit it, for it is, what it is.




Just because you say (or type) something that is false, does not increase the chances it'll no longer be false.


Take your own medicine then.




Again, see my commentary on false statements. Repeating a false statement doesn't make it less false.


Censorship:


1. suppression of published or broadcast material: the suppression of all or part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security 2. suppression of something objectionable: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable".


Please tell me, is this not what you are doing? Literally.

Doesn't matter that everybody agreed with it.

Just keep denying it.




We're advocating murder, terrorism and conspiracy? Really. My analogy was comparing the advocacy of personal use of narcotics. Perhaps you should read it again? Or, do you wish to keep ignoring common sense and continue to publicly piss on our living room carpet?



Like I said, your analogy sucks.

Talking about drugs does not equal advocating. For all we know, we could've saved a lot of people form drug abuse, if we were allowed to speak about it.

And what's with all the house pissing analogies.

Questioning certain aspects of the rules is being put on the same level as pissing in someone's house.

Pathetic.

How about letting your guests speak?

The members made this site great, the members made it possible for you to get sponsors that put annoying Duck Hunt games on top of the page.

And now when there is criticism, founded criticism, you act all mighty like I should be happy that I can post here.

You should be happy people post here, you're making money of it.

The hypochracy of it.



I'll take it to the debate thread, where I will prove my point, once and for all.

It will take me no more than 10 lines.

Goodday Sir.



[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]



This one.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I read the first post and found it pretty interesting, it goes to confirm what I have thought all along.

In recent years there has been a huge rise in number of organised internet pumpers and bashers for any given subject. Some of which, such as anonymous are just trolling for the fun of it most of the time. Others such as the megaphone bunch have a strict agenda.

These are the times of mob rule on the internet, I would like to thank the ATS staff for their efforts to kerb these outside influences on these forums. It is a tricky job to do and balance is hard to find.

To the people who are complaining of censorship, please visit /b/ and see how the uncensored version of this works.

For the record, I do disagree with some of the policies enforced on this site, but do see what is preventing mayhem around here.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania

1. suppression of published or broadcast material: the suppression of all or part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security 2. suppression of something objectionable: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable".


Please tell me, is this not what you are doing? Literally.


If it is your desire to post dueling limited definitions of the complex concept of "censorship," we'd go around in circles.
wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship
"The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated."

In this case, I have indeed repeatedly responded to your point. And my position has been continually crystal clear that a private entity defining topical limits within its confines is not censorship. It's unfortunate that you refuse to accept those repeated and consistent statements as an answer, but your refusal does not mean an answer was not provided to you.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DeepCoverUK
 


Oh boy. I was seriously thinking of mentioning that hellhole. It's really a great example of "free speech" gone wild.

Honestly, it's great for laughs and rotting of the brain, but for an intelligent conversation...well...



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Like I expected, you're not man enough to admit that you apply censorship to this site.

That's all I was going for.

Too bad you can't do it, for whatever reason.

Well, let's await the outcome of the debate.

And what was wrong with that previous post, I've been treated worse in this thread.

[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
While I agree with Nef that there most likely are outside influences at work... its also important not to blindly depend on the benevolence of the admins...

I've stated this before in many threads: The message is only 10%... the other 90% is the motivation behind the message...

This goes for anything, Member postings, Mods, ATS Admin, MSM, heck, this message even...

Understanding why a message was said, and why it was stated in a specific manner is scores more important than what the original message entails.

I encourage all ATSers to go out there, and research Propaganda and Passive controls... Identifying the intentional, or unintentional use of these two art forms is key in a deeper understanding of what is actually happening in the world.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 



How is it unreasonable to you?

Censorship is not inherently bad

People who talk about drug use on here usually talk about its perceived personal benefits

Your questions are invalid, based on, among other things, a misunderstanding of censorship

Maybe the owners should just become drug dealers themselves?



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join