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: 18
132
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


Simply amazing. How often do I have to state my point?

I just want them to admit that they use censorship.

They do, by definition.

There is no debate.

Now man up and admit it so we can stop this.




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


Simply amazing. How often do I have to state my point?

I just want them to admit that they use censorship.

They do, by definition.

There is no debate.

Now man up and admit it so we can stop this.


You expect everyone to answer you yet you don't answer others questions.
Also, if this bothers you so much, why do you post here? Why not find another site that is more to your tastes?
Of course just like most of my other questions, you probably won't answer these



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 



"We don't supress anything, we just have rules"

Rules to supress in this case.



You are most correct, "rules" is another word in this case for supression.

Now, anytime a whole entire category of something is supressed, there's a reason for it.

One might ask, why and what will be supressed next?

We are not as "free as we like to think we are".



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Jeah, because I'm trying to make one point here, and you guys keep trying to lure me into discussion with you guys, that have nothing to do with the simple, obvious point I'm trying to make, derailing the thread even further.

I'm very flattered you people all want a piece of me, but I'm not playing with you guys.

Got my point across to the owner, he refuses to step up. End of story.

You guys are insignificant in this case.

Sorry.

edit: Also, I'd like to see how you guys would hold, going against the grain, having to reply to more than 5 people at once.

And you all want a piece of the action. Please.

[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
Well, let's await the outcome of the debate.

The outcome will likely be an expression of your anger and frustration as you've made up your mind and refuse to listen to reason.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by enigmania
Well, let's await the outcome of the debate.

The outcome will likely be an expression of your anger and frustration as you've made up your mind and refuse to listen to reason.


Ah speculating,I see.

Well already made the opening statement in the debate.

Waiting for Intrepid to counter my claims.

Good luck.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
It's a sad day when the sites owner has to resort to these tactics.

Very sad indeed



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I have shown this link to SO and Nef and maybe its time I showed it to all here. It explains just how the tactics she is explaining are used to disrupt and cause the problems in posting. Take the time to read it. Its an organized concerted effort by many nefarious groups to misdirect the membership and guide them towards ideals they wish to be discussed or to squash.


warofillusions.wordpress.com...

Zindo



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123
 


Jeah, because I'm trying to make one point here, and you guys keep trying to lure me into discussion with you guys, that have nothing to do with the simple, obvious point I'm trying to make, derailing the thread even further.

Then don't post in a public forum.


I'm very flattered you people all want a piece of me, but I'm not playing with you guys.

Then don't post in a public forum.


Got my point across to the owner, he refuses to step up. End of story.

Nice. Trying to bait the site owner. I'm sure he's way too smart to fall for something like this



You guys are insignificant in this case.

Actually we're not. You're posting here so you can have an audience. If you only wanted to speak with one person, you wouldn't be standing behind a podium on a stage in an auditorium full of people
I'm sure the owner would have a private discussion with you via email, AIM, U2U, etc.. but you've chosen to post here instead. Sorry but we have your number



edit: Also, I'd like to see how you guys would hold, going against the grain, having to reply to more than 5 people at once.

Done it plenty of times. Not a problem. I'd never use that as an excuse for not answering peoples questions.


And you all want a piece of the action. Please.

[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]

Actually, we'd like to express our opinions but that's not what you want is it? You want a mute audience for your soapbox commentary. Sorry that's not going to happen here.

If you post in a public forum on ATS, anyone with common sense would expect replies to those posts and if you're not going to answer legitimate questions to your posts, you shouldn't bother posting. The world is not YOUR stage.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Like it or not enigmania is doing something most people around here don't: Questioning motives.

It would appear from your posts you have an undying belief in the benevolence of the site admin. Which is fine if you do... But you can't reasonably tear another member to shreds because he's willing to question the motives of the admin...

Enigmania is doing what he should be... You are trying to "shut him up" by being argumentative and not really contributing in an overly productive manner.

Yes, this is a public forum... but do his opinions or inqueries have to be popular in the forum he's expressing himself?

It would appear you're just trying to discredit him, and "shut him up" in your previous posts...

What's behind your motives?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I do not believe there is a conspiracy against ATS. These topics attract heated debate and it should be expected that they will be emotionally charged.

When you consider the average adult has the emotional maturity of an adolescent, all this behavior is predictable.

The majority have had their brains infected with a faulty OS (written in the language of pride, prejudice, bias, bigotry, hatred, insensitivity, meanness and selfishness).

It's programed into the minds of the sleepers to bring others down, and themselves in the process.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


If this were a thread about internet censorship, you would have a point. But it's not, and (in my opinion), enigmania's baiting tactics are more akin to trolling than to questioning motives.

Perhaps if he/she questioned nef's motives for writing the OP, or jumped in on the monster drug policy thread to debate whether it's censorship, he/she wouldn't be off topic.

But to repeatedly make a demand that has nothing to do with the thread and clearly will not be met? That's not a productive questioning, that's a stall tactic.

And a demonstration of how effective such things can be in distracting real discussion, to get my post on topic



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   




At last.

Reason prevails

Thnx.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
fist thing ,all this makes me a little paranoid,in the short time iv been checking out ATS, i have thought it to be an encouraging means of communication,Most of us here i think would agree,conspiracys are afoot,and lies wish to hush truth.how this plays out here is anyones guess, i could be a fed,? you could ATS could be CIA who knows, all anyone can do is speak their truth



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


But isn't it awfully convenient that disagreeing with the OP and making a counterclaim is construed as being precisely the type of derailment that the OP was talking about?

There's no way to disagree with the OP, and set up another argument. Any attempts to do so will just support the OP's claim...

Not saying it was intentional, only Nef knows that... But think about that for a min...



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


Simply amazing. How often do I have to state my point?

I just want them to admit that they use censorship.

They do, by definition.

There is no debate.

Now man up and admit it so we can stop this.



What benefit would that have, besides rousing the anger of ignorant sheeple who do not understand what the word "censorship" even means ?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Hi,

If you re-read my OP, you'll find that the drugs issue was one of four things I highlighted.

As there is already a thread, and an entire working group, set up to discuss the issues about drug related topics on ATS, could I ask that we discuss the actual conspiracy here, as opposed to of turning it into a single issue thing - please?

Its not a single issue thing at all.

Maybe I should expand a little - I had thought it was clear - This behaviour has been seen in every major forum on ATS. I gave some examples of how we get played, but not all of them.

The people doing it pick a single issue, and try and work it all ways round, and in the process take as many pot shots as they can at the site, the owners, the admin, the staff and in a lot of cases the members.

So instead of pointlessly going round in circles over a single thing that is being worked on to be resolved could we maybe get back to the discussion about the potential conspiracy, please?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Isn't it clear that censorship on ATS has two prevalent reasons:

1. Dealing with trolls and those who try to destroy and control topics

and

2. Ensure that discussions on ATS are not in breach of the rules imposed by "higher powers" which could ban this website for certain reasons.

It is pretty clear that insisting on using or not the word "censorship" has created a void discussion which can be easily be qualified as "trolling".



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
Like it or not enigmania is doing something most people around here don't: Questioning motives.

We have a long history of tolerating and responding to such questions. However, it becomes tedious when those asking these questions (not just enigmania, but nearly all who go down this path) refuse to accept the answers we provide. Not to mention the repetitious cycle of these types of questions.

We've made our motivations clear time and again. Either through envy, disgruntlement, or a desire to be disruptive, we find some people simply unable to accept our stated principles... which directly relates to the code issues brought up in the start of this thread.

And to make matters worse as it relates the concept of the conspiracy outlined in the opening post: (1) if we don't participate in these exchanges, the aspersion-casters use that as proof of their point, or (2) when we do participate, the aspersion-casters use that as proof they've "hit a nerve" or some such. There's no winning, only waiting for the particular round of drama (caused by the concepts outlined in the opening post) to subside.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 





What benefit would that have, besides rousing the anger of ignorant sheeple who do not understand what the word "censorship" even means ?


I didn't come in here with this point in mind.

I just made an observation, and suddenly I was mobbed by mods saying it wasn't censorship.

And then all of this happened.

It's their own fault.

That's what you get if you treat people like children, and refuse to admit to obvious situations.

I also will mind my one line responses and big qoutes, since my points are dropping harder than the DOW index after an Obama speech.




[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]




top topics



 
132
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join