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: 29
132
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyeforalie

Originally posted by jfj123
On this thread alone, I've seen attack after attack on the owners and mods and they let it slide off like water off a ducks back and frankly they should be applauded for their professionalism in the face of ignorance. When I say ignorance, I'm referring to our lack of knowledge with regards to what it takes to run a site like this so I'm not using the term as slander to anyone.


Attack after attack?? Its all been relevent and on topic. These so called attacks have been blatantly ignored. That deserves an applause?

YES.


Does the Bush Asmin. deserve an applause?

Does the bush administration run ATS? If so then YES.


The OP presented TWO points which i have reposted above. There is direct corrolation between threads being flamed and the censorship of topics.

I've seen both the owners and mods being called liars. Really not necessary.
I've seen the mods and owners answer the same questions over and over to cater to certain people in hopes they will get it.


Yes members group together based on viewpoints and argue subjects! It has been seen and noted on this very thread. The difference is that its concerned members presenting this viewpoint. Its not a covert operation run by the CIA.

Please show me the post where I'm claiming the CIA had anything to do with it. I'll await your answer patiently



The OP has presented...mmmm...maybe ONE tid-bit of backing to his statement, has been agreed with and takes a professional stance by calling in the big guns to tell his oppistition to go post somewhere else?

What are you talking about.
Plus other people have posted examples of outside sites posting negative and false information about ATS. As to their motivations, I'm not sure. I myself have posted several examples.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyeforalie

Attack after attack?? Its all been relevent and on topic. These so called attacks have been blatantly ignored. That deserves an applause? Does the Bush Asmin. deserve an applause?


Didnt you get the memo? If you dont agree with every policy a leader, (be it government, corporate, etc) proposes, you are a traitor.

Dont like the war in Iraq? You get to hear, "go live somewhere else you pinko commie...blah blah blah.."

Have a problem with a specific policy proposed on ATS? You get to hear, "if you dont like it you can go somewhere else, you ungrateful blah blah blah."

It doesnt matter if you are a rule abiding member, who DOES care about ATS, who tries very hard to add quality content, and follow the rules, thats not enough. You are still a traitor. What is required is blind flag waving obedience with a dash of boot licking thrown in. Then you are a "real" ATS supporter.

Noam Chomsky says of this;

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...


To confront power is costly and difficult; high standards of evidence and argument are imposed, and critical analysis is naturally not welcomed by those who are in a position to react vigorously and to determine the array of rewards and punishments. Conformity to a "patriotic agenda," in contrast, imposes no such costs. Charges against official enemies barely require substantiation; they are, furthermore, protected from correction, which can be dismissed as apologetics for the criminals or as missing the forest for the trees. The system protects itself with indignation against a challenge to the right of deceit in the service of power, and the very idea of subjecting the ideological system to rational inquiry elicits incomprehension or outrage, though it is often masked in other terms.


Noam Chomsky was writing this about the techniques the government uses to make sure dissenting voices arent heard, or if they are heard that they are discounted. Odd that it is so applicable here, on ATS.

A critic of a policy can offer well reasoned argument all they want. It will either be ignored, utterly, or it will be shouted down by flag waving patriots who need offer no further justification for their stance than;

"Ur dumb, and if you dont like the way it is, leave."



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Attack after attack?? Its all been relevent and on topic. These so called attacks have been blatantly ignored. That deserves an applause? Does the Bush Asmin. deserve an applause?



Dont like the war in Iraq? You get to hear, "go live somewhere else you pinko commie...blah blah blah.."

Actually most Americans don't like the war in iraq so that's a bad example.


Have a problem with a specific policy proposed on ATS? You get to hear, "if you dont like it you can go somewhere else, you ungrateful blah blah blah."

Actually, the ops and owners have been very accomodating to criticism. My personal thought is that after you've expressed your opinion and the site does not change, you obviously wouldn't be happy here so you should find another site that you would be happy at. What's wrong with that?

If you go to a diner and they serve you a lousy lunch and you complain and they continue serving, in your opinion, a lousy lunch, you go to another diner. Simple right?


It doesnt matter if you are a rule abiding member, who DOES care about ATS, who tries very hard to add quality content, and follow the rules, thats not enough. You are still a traitor.

Yeah...nobodies said that at all.


What is required is blind flag waving obedience with a dash of boot licking thrown in. Then you are a "real" ATS supporter.

Don't slip off your soapbox your you'll end up falling on a cross



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
ATS in many ways could be seen as a micro government experiment. People jumping on the band wagon about a topic is similar to how the US congress works. Ultimately it fails the people. But I love ATS and while hating censureship I'm starting to see how focus must be maintained.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Actually, the ops and owners have been very accomodating to criticism. My personal thought is that after you've expressed your opinion and the site does not change, you obviously wouldn't be happy here so you should find another site that you would be happy at. What's wrong with that?


My personal thought is that if you want a media outlet that requires goosestepping along in complete conformity without voicing any dissent, you obviously wouldnt be happy here and maybe YOU should find another site that you would be happy at.

ATS' motto is Denying Ignorance. Not perpetrating it.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Attack after attack?? Its all been relevent and on topic. These so called attacks have been blatantly ignored. That deserves an applause?

YES.

YES!? Ignoring a topic which the OP has stated himself as an issue deserves an applause?



The OP presented TWO points which i have reposted above. There is direct corrolation between threads being flamed and the censorship of topics.



I've seen both the owners and mods being called liars. Really not necessary.
I've seen the mods and owners answer the same questions over and over to cater to certain people in hopes they will get it.


Im sorry but my concerns, as well as others concerns, have been ignored. NOT ANSWERED. That is what IGNORED means. So NO they havnt "answered the same questions over and over." And how does calling them liers have anything to do with the corrolation between threads being flamed and the censorship of topics? Unless YOU are calling them liers for not pubicly recognizing the outright transparancy of the OP and trying to cover it up...



Please show me the post where I'm claiming the CIA had anything to do with it. I'll await your answer patiently


Nef alluded to the fact that this was possibly a CIA phy-op. I didnt say you. And i never disagreed that there ARE groups that flame with intention of having a thread banned.



The OP has presented...mmmm...maybe ONE tid-bit of backing to his statement, has been agreed with and takes a professional stance by calling in the big guns to tell his oppistition to go post somewhere else?




What are you talking about.


Im talking about the relevent topic the OP brought up, as posted by the OP in regards to the censorship of topics due the the few who flame which punishes the masses.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
I'm sorry, but to me your post seems like debate moulding. You're taking a few choice examples and framing them as a conspiracy against ATS, when in reality it is ATS, scared of the atention those subjects would cause, that is trying to hide them away.

Specifically the two very hot topics are Zionism (in as much as this conspiracy theory would branch out into revisionist history of the holocaust, Isreal and possibly even organised religion) and drugs (in as much that it would branch out into drug advocacy because of the alleged spiritual enlightenment and natural connection attained by the use of psychadelics).

I won't comment on the two topics, I'm mearly listing them as the elephants in the room ATS apparently dosen't want to deal with. And a mountain of rhetoric won't change the fact that you guys are scared stiff of the implications of dealing with these topics, as they are very close to the source of all conspiracy and indeed political and economic power. It's where things start getting "unconfortable".

Unless I'm just being paranoid of course, after all, this is ATS.

Your call ATS, either you let the debate evolve naturally or you attempt to shape them to avoid facing your own fears. So, deny ignorance?

Edit: All my posts are my personal opinion, no organised anything here, just somebody who knows that things are not as they seem and who would like to see them as they are. Take it for what it's worth, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, unlike the ATS policy, which is to force people to avoid certain subjects. You are in no way victims here, at least not of the membership.

Cheers.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Zepherian]


Word. I think you've gotten to the bottom of what is really going on (and with like 50 stars many agree). The most critical issues do seem to get marginalized even when most of ATS is very much in favor of discourse on the subjects--that's what the stars and flags on closed threads are for; to send a message of protestation. This thread sounds like more rationalizing of censorship to me and I don't like it.

I don't know what to make of it, except perhaps this site is being watched and the owners fear retribution from external sources.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Didnt you get the memo? If you dont agree with every policy a leader, (be it government, corporate, etc) proposes, you are a traitor.

Dont like the war in Iraq? You get to hear, "go live somewhere else you pinko commie...blah blah blah.."

Have a problem with a specific policy proposed on ATS? You get to hear, "if you dont like it you can go somewhere else, you ungrateful blah blah blah."

It doesnt matter if you are a rule abiding member, who DOES care about ATS, who tries very hard to add quality content, and follow the rules, thats not enough. You are still a traitor. What is required is blind flag waving obedience with a dash of boot licking thrown in. Then you are a "real" ATS supporter.

A critic of a policy can offer well reasoned argument all they want. It will either be ignored, utterly, or it will be shouted down by flag waving patriots who need offer no further justification for their stance than;

"Ur dumb, and if you dont like the way it is, leave."


This is EXACTLY what im getting from this.

The OP presented TWO topics. One was to be discussed, the other to be taken. When opinions were presented about the latter, the posters were told to go somewhere else. It was not off topic and the mods accepted that. We got close to a touchy subject and WE were flamed not them.

THE OP PRESENTED THE TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION.

"You dont like what were telling you than leave" is what i got.

Pathetic for a site of this stature.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CapsFan8
The most critical issues do seem to get marginalized even when most of ATS is very much in favor of discourse on the subjects--that's what the stars and flags on closed threads are for; to send a message of protestation. This thread sounds like more rationalizing of censorship to me and I don't like it.


im going to post this AGAIN

Closed in 20 min

Why the stars????????????????

and yes, i voiced my protest in a u2u.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
S&F!

So maybe I'm not so crazy!!!

I think there can be logical explanations to some of your thoughts.
One is that when something considered important such as drugs is in heated debate and then the thread is closed, that can upset some people. I know it's in the T&C and won't push the fact any further than that. That has been the reason I flagged a closed thread.

I know I shouldn't have and will refrain in the future.

There are other places for it.
Very interesting read and it just might be that some important individuals are aware of this forum. How much more interesting things could become.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by N3krostatic
I know I shouldn't have and will refrain in the future.


Is this refering to the staring of closed threads?

im not quite clear what you ment by that...



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Rockefeller is definitely running this site as a COINTELPRO front.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Sorry, I read through about 10 pages of this thread but gave up, so if it's already posted just point me in the right direction.

My question is: Who are the investors behind this site?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
It doesnt matter if you are a rule abiding member, who DOES care about ATS, who tries very hard to add quality content, and follow the rules, thats not enough. You are still a traitor. What is required is blind flag waving obedience with a dash of boot licking thrown in. Then you are a "real" ATS supporter.


See now thats so much rubbish. Really, it is.

Did I say any of that? No. Did I even infer any of that? Definitely not.

Jeez. What bought that one out of the woodwork?

I'm reading some of the posts and claims made in this thread and that they are so, so far off the mark - the sheer utter resentment of the forum in what you've written here is astonishing.

How can anything I write actually respond to that? I'm hung, drawn and quartered before I even get chance to reply.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyeforalie
The OP has presented...mmmm...maybe ONE tid-bit of backing to his statement, has been agreed with and takes a professional stance by calling in the big guns to tell his oppistition to go post somewhere else?


I called no one in.

The forum is owned by Skeptic Overlord. Its his site and he has as much - if not more because of that - right to post in any thread on the board.

You cry "censorship", but what you actually mean is that you can't - at the moment discuss a single issue because people deliberately broke the site terms and conditions and the owners took action over it - one that they are currently looking to work towards reinstating by working with members of the site, chosen by other members.

Tell me, what other subjects are you actively prevented from discussing on ATS? Write me a list.

Potshot after potshot. All over a single issue. ATS is MORE than a single issue. There are thousands and thousands of posts on thousands of subjects. I have made it clear time and time again in this thread that it is most certainly not about the drugs issue, and its been explained that what i'm discussing has happened all across the forum but you continually try and make it out to be.

So I have to ask now - Why is that? Exactly? Is it all you care about?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Looking at it from both sides of the curtain, as a member and as a mod.

do you feel that gives you some special insight into organised disruption? how?



So the RNC thing wasn't good enough for you to understand that outside agitators do target the forum?

the RNC thing was interesting, it was interesting at the time yet it had an often ignored logical explanation as well as the suspicious one.

frankly, the idea that a heated political forum would have no posters attending the RNC is ludicrous. i guess that isn't as exciting or as ego stroking as the interpretation assigned to it.


I find the assertions that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm delusional mildly amusing -


i'm glad i amuse you, but i'ld prefer if you didn't twist my words.
to be clear, i'm suggesting you are suffering from a common side effect of immersion in a subject, you're starting to see conspiracies in everything because we're all being bombarded by them at the minute.
like a psychiatrist that believes almost everyone is neurotic because he speaks to neurotics all day long.

and i didn't say you don't know what you're talking about, i said you have an obligation to furnish us with evidence seeing as you started the thread. the obligation of proof is in your court.


I wouldn't have started the topic if I hadn't looked into it Pieman,


good stuff, would you care to present findings on it then or should we hold you to a lesser standard than someone registered last week?



I think its absolutely the best frame of mind to highlight the fact that we're a target for deliberate disruption because were running one of the top CT sites at a world changing time.


as has been the case since i joined, at least, so what's the big deal?
the sites bigger so the attacks will grow proportionately. seeing the membership as a threat suggests you're not in a good frame of mind, IMO.

if you guys are overwhelmed by the attacks perhaps it's time to think about hiring more mods, it's not as if you pay them.

or you could keep this crap up and alienate the last of the membership that cares about the content.

just out of curiosity, am i a suspected disruptor because of my disagreement? i'ld like to know.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
do you feel that gives you some special insight into organised disruption? how?


Yes. When we check into complaints made by members and realize that five posters attacking a claim all come from the very same IP-area on the globe, we then have some "unique insight" one would normally not have.



just out of curiosity, am i a suspected disruptor because of my disagreement? i'ld like to know.


Since does disagreeing put you on a blacklist?

Its amazing to see how many here project evil unto the slightest hint of authority - even if its only the owner of some website.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Its amazing to see how many here project evil unto the slightest hint of authority - even if its only the owner of some website.


thanks for the answer to the first part of my question, that's interesting.

this second comment could equally be countered by saying it's amazing what those in authority project onto a question.

i never said anything about evil, i'm curious as to how these threatening entities are identified.

i disagreed with a number of things mentioned. there seems to be a suspicion of organised dissent. does my disagreeableness make me a suspect? it's a simple question.

i assume there are watch lists if this is such a big issue, i want to know how one comes to be included on these watch lists.

EDIT TO ADD: by the way, answering a question with a question is really rude and answering my question with a question i am in no position to answer feels like distraction, trivialisation and spin.

if a politician answered in the way you did i would assume that yes, dissent does mean you are on a black list but you wish people to believe otherwise.

[edit on 3/3/09 by pieman]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


By thinking that disagreement is monitored as suspicious you are projecting nazi-like qualities onto people who have no such qualities.

This website experiences a daily onslaught of attacks, criticism, conspiracy-theories-against-ATS, libel, slander...

...much of which is simply accepted as something conspiracy-theorists do. If they had nazi-like qualities your disagreement would be deleted.

Mods dont remove disagreement. They remove T&C Violations.



[edit on 3-3-2009 by Skyfloating]




top topics



 
132
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join