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: 8
132
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by enigmania
Thnx, but backing down now would reinforce the idea that censorship is nessescary for the greater good, wich is BS.

It's just easier, and probably more profitable.

[edit on 28/2/09 by enigmania]


OK, let's strike a compromise. Why don't you and I take this to the Debate Forum and let this topic continue?



A compromise? Did I hit a nerve there?

There are no grounds for compromise.

ATS is being censored.

ATS either admits it, or ATS goes on with the charade.

No middleroad.




posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania

OK, let's strike a compromise. Why don't you and I take this to the Debate Forum and let this topic continue?



A compromise? Did I hit a nerve there?

There are no grounds for compromise.

ATS is being censored.

ATS either admits it, or ATS goes on with the charade.

No middleroad.


So that's a "no"? Why, do you not believe in your position? Your debate skills? Or you just want to crap on the board?

[edit on 28-2-2009 by intrepid]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by FredT
 





Once again, you agreed to the terms and condtions when you signed up.


Yes, I think it also states that I can post my opinion.


Seems to me like you're posting your opinions like crazy so what's the problem.
Like I've stated, freedom of speech is NOT absolute, please stop pretending it is and everything will be ok



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 





Why don't you and I take this to the Debate Forum and let this topic continue?


By all means let's, or does it mean I should shut up in this thread?



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 



You just don't get it do you?


I do get it, I totally get that you refuse to accept the stance that ATS is holding and you're arguing that it's morally wrong.
EVERYBODY gets what you are saying.


Clean up your own act before talking about ATS being attacked.


My conscience and posting history are clean. I'm not attacking you, I'm responding to your posts. I just tire of the revolutions.


Man up, and admit that the site censors some subjects.

I can live with that.


Agree with you and I then become a man, even though I disagree? I can't be the man you want me to be. Frankly, it's quite the easy choice. I cannot live with that.


Just don't act as if it is not censorship, because it makes you lose your credibiliy.


It's no act. I'm like this at home. At work. Here. I choose to avoid the topics I could talk very expertly on, because it's the rules when I'm here. It comes down to me. Not ATS. ATS and I just share the same opinion on this view.

Cuhail



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania

Thnx, but backing down now would reinforce the idea that censorship is nessescary for the greater good, wich is BS.


Thanks for turning this thread into your own private soap box!

Line two, goodnight.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by neformore
 





That choice is a simple one. You can either stick with the site rules, or you can go elsewhere. Thats not censorship. Thats your freedom of choice.



Definitions: 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 again, with a straight face, what censorship is.

The fact that I can choose to leave doesn't take a thing away from this being censorship.

If you don't like the way the news is being censored in America, you could always leave the country, so it's not censorship. Right?

Right.



The censorship on this site seems to be about preventing disruptive and destructive acts, as well as assisting in the mission, which is to enable civil discussion.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 





So that's a "no"? Why, do you not believe in your position? Your debate skills? Or you just want to crap on the board?


Intrepid, your attempts at psychology are of kindergarten level. Don't insult me.

[edit on 28/2/09 by enigmania]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by enigmania
 





Why don't you and I take this to the Debate Forum and let this topic continue?


By all means let's,


Cool, I'll contact a Debate mod and get it set up. How does, "ATS censors members" for a title?


or does it mean I should shut up in this thread?


Personally I think you've been given extreme latitude on this. Say your piece in the debate. We can link it. You think that this is on topic, it isn't.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania

You just don't get it do you?

Clean up your own act before talking about ATS being attacked.

Man up, and admit that the site censors some subjects.

I can live with that.

Just don't act as if it is not censorship, because it makes you lose your credibility.

[edit on 28/2/09 by enigmania]

Please show me where it says anywhere, even in the United States CONSTITUTION, that freedom of speech is absolute.
Pretty please



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PullThePin
I think the OP is reading way too much into people getting mad at ATS for enforcing the T&C.

I don't think it is a "conspiracy against ATS." Rather it's just people being jackasses because they can in this anonymous world called the internet.

As far as the drug threads I don't know why they aren't allowed. There is an obvious conspiracy around illegal drugs, especially in the United States. Things like alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs are legal while being many times more dangerous and harmful than the majority of illegal drugs.

Education instead of propaganda would go a long way into helping with the abuse of drugs, both legal and illegal.


Hi PullThePin, welcome to ATS.

I'm on the fence on this only because it seems there are alot of grps out there and single personnel that are outright attacking the T&C while others are just vying to to get points.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I was thinking more along the lines of;

"ATS censors entire subjects"



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
I was thinking more along the lines of;

"ATS censors entire subjects"


Done. I'm obviously taking the "con" position.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 





Please show me where it says anywhere, even in the United States CONSTITUTION, that freedom of speech is absolute. Pretty please


Please show me where I said that.

Don't take it further off topic cause I can do this all day if that's what you want.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PullThePin
I don't think it is a "conspiracy against ATS." Rather it's just people being jackasses because they can in this anonymous world called the internet.

As far as the drug threads I don't know why they aren't allowed. There is an obvious conspiracy around illegal drugs, especially in the United States. Things like alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs are legal while being many times more dangerous and harmful than the majority of illegal drugs.


If anyone on the staff disagrees that there are valid conspiracy topics related to illegal drugs, I have not seen them say so. The evidence is incontrovertible – not only overwhelming but in some cases official – think CIA experiments for a historical example, or the Iran-Contra affair.

Not being able to discuss any of those things because a handful of organized legalization advocates/"first amendment" fanatics/immature troublemakers insisted on breaking the Terms and Conditions of this site by posting and soliciting stories about personal use of illegal substances is extremely disturbing.

And makes one wonder if there wasn't a larger purpose to the disruptive behavior – like to make sure we couldn't discuss a whole huge group of topics tangentially involving drug use. Or that we would become so mired in the ensuing "free speech" protests that the board would eventually implode.

Hopefully a way will be found to lift the blanket ban on all discussions of illegal substances. That will not, and need not, mean that people can start discussing how their life was changed by such means – that is outside the focus of ATS and has been outside its T&C for years now.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
ATS is in the midst of growing pains. The site by and large contained discussion on pressing matters neglected by the mainstream media.
There have always been lees thoughtful and knowledgeable people on board, but their numbers and sway was manageable.

The world is changing, the Internet is changing, and the nature of an open forum like this is affected. Competing conspiracy forums wanting more traffic see ATS as the multinational conglomerate version of what they are trying to do. Bringing it down an notch helps their cause, if nothing else, psychologically.

ATS is also achieving a sort of celebrity status in it's sub-culture field. So inevitably attracts those who resent success.

The site is no longer the forum it was designed to be. The noise to signal ratio is going to bring it down.

The open source forum model, so magnanimous philosophically, is no longer manageable. It worked for years, but not any more.

For me, as an example, a thought provoking thread might be started, but when I have to wade through a dozen pages, with plain dopey or nasty messages along the way, I just give up. I can't spare the time or required energy to wade through a swamp just to get - maybe - a morsel of knowledge.

My local newspaper's site will give me one person's view which may be terribly skewed, but I can digest it in a few minutes, and there's minimal
sidetracking.

I loathe censorship in principle, but wish it were practice here. Or let's call it diligent editing. If I want to see what's happening with a UFO sighting, I don't want to hear about a teenager talking about the government cover-up of Roswell, for the hundredth time. On the Israeli-Gaza conflict, I don't want to read Jewish hatred under the veneer of Zionist criticism.

ATS needs a shakeup and refocus. It has dozens maybe hundreds of thoughtful articulate people. Their voices are being drowned out, they will eventually be silenced by dilution or frustration.

The template was a sound one when instituted. But no longer works.

I hate being negative, but that's what I see.


Mike F




[edit on 1-3-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 





Done. I'm obviously taking the "con" position.


Obviously, because you just defy the very definition of censorship.

Perpetually.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123
 





Please show me where it says anywhere, even in the United States CONSTITUTION, that freedom of speech is absolute. Pretty please


Please show me where I said that.

Don't take it further off topic cause I can do this all day if that's what you want.

You keep crying censorship and there's no middle ground right???
That means you want unrestrained freedom of speech.
So, please show me where it says anywhere, even in the United States CONSTITUTION, that freedom of speech is absolute. Pretty please



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania


Done. I'm obviously taking the "con" position.


Obviously, because you just defy the very definition of censorship.

Perpetually.


You want the "con" position?

Edit: Oops I thought you said "define". My bad.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by intrepid]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by lola322
 



There is a way to discuss sex with a 8-10 year old that is not psychologically damaging. The most commonly-accepting methods for doing so are damaging, however.

I'm not sure about your stance on politically-correct discourse, but there comes a point where the 100th monkey does not need to be represented.

Using the Internet to incite action borders on illegal, especially if it's based on untrue information. Many "peaceful protests" are actually deceptive. I'm surprised that issues such as astro-turfing are not discussed more on ATS



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join