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: 33
132
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyeforalie
I have a perfect example! This very thread! 2 of your rather well respected members have been BANNED for questioning the motives and ideals of the Mods and management of this site.

We don't normally discuss specific bannings in public, but if you'd provide an example of who you're referring to, perhaps I can offer up more detail than what seems to have caused your assumptions.



You Posted ONE post after I asked you why you havnt responded to me as of yet.

Given all the other things I do, it's impossible to keep up on every post in a thread such as this. Can you link to the post where there is a concern that was not addressed?



And you dont like when you are called a liar.

Because I'm not.



WE BRING THE REVANUE TO THIS SITE, NOT YOU.

I wasn't aware that this was a discussion about revenue. Do you feel you're not getting sufficient value in return for the free services we provide our members?




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   


Originally posted by eyeforalie
Well now!!

Look what we have here!

Isn't this a perfect example of how groups of people with like viewpoints, and strong supporting arguments can get to a point, when a subject gets near disclosure, it is flamed by its adversaries to the point that comments must be labeled off topic. I did not see the comments but at this point i can only imagine...

There are some questions that need to be answered here...

The topic of discussion, to the best of my interpretation, is:

a) The possibility of covert organizations infiltrating ATS to either gather information or derail and hopefully ban topics when lose to disclosure.

b) The relation to the above resulting in the censorship of ALL of ATS's members topical choices by its governing body due to the comments and actions of the few.

Am I missing something here?

There is no positive proof for "A", although it is a known possibility to all frequenting members, and has not yet been denied by anyone.

Topic "B" on the other hand has substantial backing and has actually caused the scenario that topic "A" has referred to.

Hmmmmm....



Here you are


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Given all the other things I do, it's impossible to keep up on every post in a thread such as this. Can you link to the post where there is a concern that was not addressed?


Yea, I understand that.


Originally posted by eyeforalie
Skeptic,
Im not quite sure why you have not addressed me as of yet. It seems like this topic is being swept under the rug. None of the mods or the OP has either. I understand that things come up, and your not always to get on line, but this thread has died. And for none of you to check into this seems unrealistic. I would like you to either engague in discussion here, or allow me to post a new thread where this can be talked about between us. I had my first thread closed saying that the topic was already being debated. So i come back here and noone will talk about it. Why do i keep getting the run-around? Its like when you call tech support...except I HAD the owner on the line. A good buisness man never hangs up on his coustomers. Hanging up on customers is not good business practice in tuff times like these Skeptic.
[edit on 5-3-2009 by eyeforalie]



I wasn't aware that this was a discussion about revenue. Do you feel you're not getting sufficient value in return for the free services we provide our members?


Im not impressed with what you say you do and stand for vs. what you actually do and say. Whithout your members you have nothing. Well... except the other sites.


We don't normally discuss specific bannings in public, but if you'd provide an example of who you're referring to, perhaps I can offer up more detail than what seems to have caused your assumptions.


"You could hardly ban me."----BAM! Banned.

You know who im talkin about.

Your a smart man Bill...But I think your starting to mess up.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
What an ironic topic lol



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyeforalie
Here you are

You make several sweeping generalizations in that post, but I'm hard pressed to find a point that hasn't been addressed in responses here. Could you pick out an item that you feel is most important which you believe was not considered in any responses?



Whithout your members you have nothing.

I've never said nor implied any such thing... nor have I engaged in any management decision that didn't place the community in paramount importance. Do you have a specific example that might help to state your point?



You know who im talkin about.

Really... I don't.

As these threads and topics progress on ATS, it's easy (and human nature) to get caught up and consumed in one or two fast-moving and titillating threads. From the vantage point of those who are active in the thread, it may feel like the topic is dominating all other topics for a period of time. And as such, casual or inactive participants won't have the same point of view as those who are active. With that in mind, consider that even though I may be participating in some of these threads -- I'm not active and constantly able to immediately recall details... and even worse (in my case) attempting to shift mental gears from other problems or time-drains of a completely different nature. That being said... it would be helpful if you'd indicate the former member you're referring to.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

As these threads and topics progress on ATS, it's easy (and human nature) to get caught up and consumed in one or two fast-moving and titillating threads. From the vantage point of those who are active in the thread, it may feel like the topic is dominating all other topics for a period of time. And as such, casual or inactive participants won't have the same point of view as those who are active. With that in mind, consider that even though I may be participating in some of these threads -- I'm not active and constantly able to immediately recall details... and even worse (in my case) attempting to shift mental gears from other problems or time-drains of a completely different nature. That being said... it would be helpful if you'd indicate the former member you're referring to.


That makes sence. And im sorry for assuming you were active in this thread, but I believe this is a very important issue pertaining to the continuation of credibility of your site. Maybe this is an issue better hashed out between the OP and I. But he hasnt replied. Like I stated earlier, this is understandable, we all have lives (well...most of us
)




I've never said nor implied any such thing... nor have I engaged in any management decision that didn't place the community in paramount importance. Do you have a specific example that might help to state your point?


By this do you mean my main point, or my statement about this site being nothing without its members? The latter was purely a statement. My main point is the denial of:

The topic of discussion, to the best of my interpretation, is:

a) The possibility of covert organizations infiltrating ATS to either gather information or derail and hopefully ban topics when lose to disclosure.

b) The relation to the above resulting in the censorship of ALL of ATS's members topical choices by its governing body due to the comments and actions of the few.

There is no positive proof for "A", although it is a known possibility to all frequenting members, and has not yet been denied by anyone.

Topic "B" on the other hand has substantial backing and has actually caused the scenario that topic "A" has referred to.

By this i do not think that these are sweeping genralizations. Many have agreed with me, and some have been banned.



You know who im talkin about.

enigmania

Sorry if i missed something...ill be back later. I have to get the little one.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Once again a compelling diversion/distraction from far more important issues which should be getting this level of attention here.

See you all in the tent cities and FEMA camps.





posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   


Im not impressed with what you say you do and stand for vs. what you actually do and say. Whithout your members you have nothing.



By this do you mean my main point, or my statement about this site being nothing without its members?

Your original implication appears to point some type of finger in the general direction of neglecting the needs of the community and/or our members. Is that not your original point?



enigmania

He was clearly ignoring our responses and/or refusing to accept clear and simple answers. Since he was repeatedly beating the same horse for the selfish and sole purpose of disruption, he was banned in accordance with our Terms & Conditions.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


Yea well say hi to Vahall on you way to the ovens...She'll be next to Springer.

Skeptic, you sidestep topics very well. As for your logic or reasoning behind this...Well, lets just leave that to the readers to decide. I for one refuse to argue and play your games. They are petty. You cant give a honest statement. They will find out.

Thats not the reason Engimania was banned.

Why dont you call u2u's PM's?

They would have to be private...Right?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyeforalie
Skeptic, you sidestep topics very well.

Typical.

Make accusations. When asked to substantiate said accusations; deflect attention and/or claim we're being sinister, devious, sidestepping, whatever. Toss in off-the-cuff insults and snide remarks/snipes and we see a typical recipe for anti-anything-ATS-stew.

Why is it that, when confronted with claims for substantiations, the disgruntled disruptive detractors are unable to respond with anything substantive?



Just adds more meat to the bones of the opening post.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Well Im sorry but you do side step. Yes...i do imply that the care of your members opinions is terrible. You say that anyone who disagrees with you is disinfo, or disgruntled or whatever. The op has abandoned his thread because he cannot back up HIS statements to the debunkers. He implied that because disinfo groups are around topics should be/are censored. That isnt right. When he was called out, members against his views were banned or flamed. It proved so many points. If you dont agree with that then let the readers decide.



Make accusations. When asked to substantiate said accusations; deflect attention and/or claim we're being sinister, devious, sidestepping, whatever. Toss in off-the-cuff insults and snide remarks/snipes and we see a typical recipe for anti-anything-ATS-stew.


I was never was anti-anything-ATS. Im anti-wrong and anti-censorship of this site. But i didnt ever have a hard position against ATS until this all happened. I was/ am a daily reader. Its very hypocritical of this place. The snide remarks will come from anyone after repeatedly abused by those who claim to defend the truth, and dont walk the walk. Especially after being flamed in a topic about flaming.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyeforalie
You say that anyone who disagrees with you is disinfo, or disgruntled or whatever.

I never said any such thing. However, I will tend to think that way of people who just toss around unsubstantiated claims... and refuse to substantiate those claims. (Not just you, but anyone who fits the description.)

We've long supported disagreement and questions. Find any other online discussion board, forum, blog, whatever that tolerates the amount of public criticism we tolerate here. You won't, because it gets removed. Another "damned when we do, damned when we don't, no-win" scenario that feeds right back into the points of the opening post.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
No, im sorry...you never SAID that you just implied it. Thats how you sidestep around the topics. They wernt "unsubstantiated claims". The OPs were though.



We've long supported disagreement and questions




He was clearly ignoring our responses and/or refusing to accept clear and simple answers. Since he was repeatedly beating the same horse for the selfish and sole purpose of disruption, he was banned in accordance with our Terms & Conditions.


Disruption is in the eye of the beholder. I didnt see disruption, except in the case of disrupting thee OPs agenda. Which was flawed. And he was called on it...couldnt back it up. Just like any other thread he was debunked. Im sorry he couldnt back his words.

beating a dead horse - half the member community is guilty of that action.

look at the religious threads.

so in other words: He didn't fall in line when we told him to, that's why he was banned.

I didnt see that in the T&C


How about you let me reopen my thread on the conspiracy within ATS?
You can debunk me then. I just wont be able to ban those who disagree with me to smother my opposition. That way we can leave this how it is...Stay on topic and let the members decide what they think. Seems fair to me.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
i think this thread is a perfect example of hypocritical rule enforcement.

a quick search will provide a member with any number of threads expressing an "ATS Conspiracy" hypothesis , cointelpro, or disinfo, or cia, or whatever....all of these threads are eventually locked by staff or the OP is attacked or humiliated by staff or suck up members for not appreciating what they have been given for free, (there are a number of examples of staff ridiculing an OP for proposing an "ATS Conspiracy", you hardly need me to remind you of those threads or provide examples, in fact one of the threads has almost a whole page of staff oneliners and ridicule of the OP.
i can provide a link or even screen shots if it's required.
)

however a "Conspiracy Against ATS" started by a staff member is perfectly OK, whilst any dissenting voices in this thread are dealt with vociferiously, curiously by more than a few staff members and owner.

And i might add not without the odd member banning either, which due to the fact that "we don't talk about bannings" means that no one is exactly sure why particular comments have been removed from this thread and why some of those members have been banned.

Having said all that, and it has been shoved down everyones throats ad nauseum, this is a privately owned site and the owners and staff can decipher their own T&C anyway they like.

The argument often sprouted by staff and sheeplike members is that we are given a venue "free of charge" to espouse our theory's.

Sure, we don't pay a monetary priviledge to be members of this site with lots of bells and whistles and points for posts, but we do pay, the owners do make an income from the intellectual property provided by members.

How successful would this site be without your intellectual content?

Again, i have no problem with this, we agree when signing up to the T&C, its the unequal and sometimes biased enforcement of said T&C which i personally did not sign up for.

"deny ignorance" i believe is the cornerstone of your sites philosophy.

we are all at times guilty of not adhering to this principle, however its the ability to admit to not adhering to it at times that is the foundation on which that slogan stands imho.

AM E.

(PS..im probably one of those sleepers that neformore mentioned considering my low post count and the types of threads ive posted on which some would say are critical of ATS, the truth however is much diffewrent than nefermores perception.)

[edit on 7-3-2009 by AncientMy Enemy]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyeforalie
Disruption is in the eye of the beholder. I didnt see disruption, except in the case of disrupting thee OPs agenda. Which was flawed. And he was called on it...couldnt back it up. Just like any other thread he was debunked. Im sorry he couldnt back his words.


Its not an agenda, its a post on a conspiracy theory messageboard about a potential conspiracy. Its not flawed, its very real. Some evidence has been provided. Its a theory - like most things put forward on ATS.



1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Theory Definition

Why the need to try and vehemently and spitefully rip into so badly? There have been two pieces of information posted into the thread that provide compelling evidence for the theory, the RNC thing and the site that SO mentioned. A number of other members have said that they have observed what they perceive to be the theory in action, and some have commented they they don't think I'm right. But thats what the board is about. Debate and discussion, in a civilised manner. 127 stars and 117 flags so far seems to indicate that people thought it was an interesting discussion topic.

When I wrote this;


Originally posted by neformore
Disclaimer - I'm not out to start a witch hunt or poke fingers at anyone here. I'm certainly not inferring that anyone who has been involved in debating the issues that I've mentioned above is in the frame. What I am saying is that sometimes you - as members- and we - as staff - our are having our buttons pushed for us - quite deliberately in my opinion


I did it because I meant it.

Lighten up.

Now if you want to discuss what I, and other posters who have backed up my observations have said, then fine. If you just want to intentionally and constantly take offence, and try and twist it into something it isn't whilst launching pseudo digs at the staff and members, then don't expect a reply from me at all. Frankly, lifes too short to spend it banging my head up a wall.




[edit on 7/3/09 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
One man's rule is another man's breach of free speech.
Is that what some of you are trying to say?

Well yes,if it conflicts with your own agenda.

If your agenda is simply to chat with like-minded people on topics that don't often emerge in a pub,college,family dinner etc...

Then I don't see what aspect of that ATS has suddenly stripped away from anyone.

Your 'ANTI-ATS' posts are here for everyone to read.
What more do you guys want?

I'm guessing that is the question everyone wants answered...

Rule changes to allow 'material' kids shouldn't be subjected to?

Discussion of your personal 'medicinal' habits that,to be honest,bores the hell out of everyone else?

Are you after a share in the profits from ad revenues or something?
...because you shared some interesting facts or figures on 'the moon landing' or 'reptillians' or something?

What about transparency?
Well I demand to know what colour socks Springer is wearing today!!

If he doesn't tell me in which order he puts them on,then I guess I'll start throwing around accusations of 'information suppression'

But some of you make me laugh..
The very fact that this is an extremely 'member orientated' site is in every post you are making in criticism.

You are actually involved in debunking yourselves..How ironic is that?



...No I'm not 'pro-establishment' or a 'sheeple' or whatever either.

I'd quite happily celebrate the collapse of rules,governments,civilization and technology with a few friends over a few cups of goats blood.

If I ran this site I'd have just thrown a total tantrum,pulled the plug and wished you all the best on my way to the Caribbean with my 14th large tequila sunrise.

Either that or you'd be out the door with a footprint on your arse to remind you to be a little more respectful in other peoples houses.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by eyeforalie
 


Holy further disruption Batman. Your buddy gets banned for disrupting this topic and you take up the banner. If that doesn't speak to the OP the Kernel doesn't know what does. The Kernel also wonders who's going to take up this cause after you've been banned for the same reason.

Popcorn on lap and mash in hand, this should be interesting. The funny thing is this post is more on topic than anything you've posted.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kernel Korn
 


It wasnt disruption at all. It was completely on topic. Thats the funny thing. I know what was said in those deleted posts. I was only his "buddy" because of this thread and our like views on it. We wernt a gang of dis-info agents. We hadnt even posted in on the same topic before this. Im not trying to get him back here or anything, he doesnt want to come back.

I havnt been off topic once, SO engaged in discussion with me about those points that you see as a potential to get me banned. If I were to be, SO would also be in violation of his own terms and conditions. We would both be "off topic". I could hardly be banned for that.

Have you followed this whole thread?

Discussion of topics has natural tangents. Those tangents need to be openly adressed, like in any other thread, to get down to the bottom of any topic.




What more do you guys want?


Nothing. the points are there, like you said, for everyone to make there own judgements with. If it needs to go further, ive already requested that my thread be re-opened, so the OP can get back to what he INTENDED this to be about. What was intended was not what i saw comming from him though.

Yea...this has been a heated thread. There have been ALOT of points argued over. It has been great. This is what debate should be. Yea...and sometimes, as SO stated, people do spout their mouths off without being banned. But I dont think those banned members did that. I dont think they were off topic or out of line. This just happend to be a high profile case, and they were delt with accoridingly. Just seems odd to me that it proved the point of the OP.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Semantics and BS


Originally posted by eyeforalie
Thats the funny thing. I know what was said in those deleted posts. I was only his "buddy" because of this thread and our like views on it. We wernt a gang of dis-info agents. We hadnt even posted in on the same topic before this. Im not trying to get him back here or anything, he doesnt want to come back.


You know what's in those deleted posts? How? The Kernel has no idea. Didn't know that he didn't want to come back either. How do you if you're not "buddies"?


Have you followed this whole thread?


Yes.


If it needs to go further, ive already requested that my thread be re-opened, so the OP can get back to what he INTENDED this to be about. What was intended was not what i saw comming from him though.


Sounds like an admission that you DID take this off topic from what was intended. Wink, wink.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyeforalie
If I were to be, SO would also be in violation of his own terms and conditions.

Oh please.

You (and your ilk) enjoy tossing about all manner of accusations, accusatory assumptions, and language with subtle accusations about the manner in which we (ATS owners, admin, and staff) operate this website. Since that is directly related to the points in the opening post, I politely asked you to substantiate something or at least identify concerns that have not been addressed. Rather than respond in kind by giving me something to work with, you claim I'm "sidestepping."

Here I am, asking direct questions, looking for real information, so that I can do my best to provide a reasonable response. And the response I get is avoidance and vagaries. To me, that is the core nature of many of the problems described in the opening post.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I never said i didnt talk to him afterword...Yes I DO know what was said.



Sounds like an admission that you DID take this off topic from what was intended. Wink, wink.


What the OP INTENDED it to be. Not what the topic was actually about...
I have never disagreed that there were groups out to get em'. Read.

Lemme ask you Kernel, are you on topic with the OP? Or are you just talking to talk? Looks to me like the latter. Eat your popcorn silently if you have nothing worthwile to say. This isnt a show.

Please refrain from commenting with the intention to get me banned.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join