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: 9
132
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 





You keep crying censorship and there's no middle ground right??? That means you want unrestrained freedom of speech.


There is no middleground in the debate about ATS using censorship.

They are, there is no middleground there.




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

Originally posted by jfj123

You keep crying censorship and there's no middle ground right???


Good point, bet this question is avoided by enigma.

Line two.

Guess I was wrong, been wrong before too.



[edit on 2/28/2009 by infinityoreilly]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
All I've noticed is the people who actually have "real information" are driven away -sooner or later- or banned - or their posts 'never make it to the screen'. Especially when it comes to aliens, ufos, reptilians and the like. Anyone who knows more than the average joe sees this plain as day. And some of the so called experts (with all due respect- where it is actually due) are not as expert as they claim, others seem bona fide, whilst others seem to prefer to only hand out small granules of what they know and horde the rest for a little power.

So for an 'independant & alternative' site that constantly requires 'proof' when dealing with the interdimensional, the experiential and the energetic it seems laughable, childish even, to applaude this said constant cry of a 'scientific approach' when this method is a primitive closed system and hundreds of years out of date anyway, and all the childish squabbles that go with it and result from it - in my view are often quite calculated.

Perhaps a different approach is required - where it is understood that beyond the convieniently closed system of 'modern science', 'modern ethics' and lowest common demoninator of popularist group thought, most of these topics really are interdimensional, experiential and energetic and all 'proof' is ultimately subjective and personal - This place (ATS) seems a perfect opportunity to rectify this but that never seems to happen.

Instead in my humble opinion, ATS seems more guided towards being a place to pull down those who know, I mean those who REALLY know and the repeated circular arguments that come as a result of this : the high school debate of is/is not and may/may not be true can be repeated ad nasueum getting everyone nowhere and freeing no one from the prison like paradigms carefully constructed for the general populace.

Those who rant and rave about proof obviously do not know how this whole thing works -and cannot reach the perception & consciousness that these things require - the bastion of such such limited thinking, this 'logical' argument so proudly touted seems more to constrain those they wish silenced and the true information they hold. Same goes for those who engage in biting back at those trying to hook them with derailing topics, outrageous comments and small minded opinions truly instigated just to create chaos. Do you not think that some folk are creating these threads on purpose to analyse, collect and collate data on general opionions from a unique slice of the population?

Is ATS the guiding light that it proclaims to be?
Does ATS ultimately steer us towards or away from greater understanding, or does it result in a circular pattern with one foot nailed to floor?

I have no answer - but it is curious to ponder.

Perhaps this thread you've started is a great starting point to get people thinking about greater personal and interdimensional possibilities & responsibilities for their own thoughts - rather than having a couple of people who can use photoshop to debunk almost everything and anything, or having people flame on and on in the same old tired way, or have the constant debates on wether conscious individuals do or do not have the experiences such conscious souls can have.

Hate is hate. Fear is fear. Opinion is opinion. Truth is truth. All of these things are subjective, personal and ultimately easily discernable.

The idea of what is really going on in this world is far more important than arguing with the few(?) who do lie and misguide and misdirect. Are any of these actually connected to ATS and what ulterior motives could there be attached to it - who knows? Everything is possible.

Truth points to itself, so lets see how ATS serves the people over the next few years, how the people respond, and how many people take this opportunity to rise above the fifth sensory mundanity that has kept us all trapped for longer than most would believe and many could never comprehend.

Thoughts?



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123
 





You keep crying censorship and there's no middle ground right??? That means you want unrestrained freedom of speech.


There is no middleground in the debate about ATS using censorship.

They are, there is no middleground there.

Good so we know for sure your position embraces unrestrained freedom of speech under any circumstances.
Well what if person A were to call Homeland security and say person B was a terrorist even knowing person B was not a terrorist. Based on your logic, this would be ok. Would it still be ok if you were person B? Or are you starting to see that freedom of speech is not absolute??



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 





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.


No, don't get it. My problem is not directly the stance ATS is taking, but the way it is portrayed, as not being censorship, digusts me.




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


I wasn't talking about you personally, I was talking about ATS itself.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123
 





You keep crying censorship and there's no middle ground right??? That means you want unrestrained freedom of speech.


There is no middleground in the debate about ATS using censorship.

They are, there is no middleground there.



Censorship is not inherently bad



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
hand swarming look at me post??

what exactly do you call the OP?

perception is a MOFO



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by jfj123

You keep crying censorship and there's no middle ground right???


Good point, bet this question is avoided by enigma.

Line two.

Guess I was wrong, been wrong before too.



[edit on 2/28/2009 by infinityoreilly]



I'm glad your premature assumptions got you burned.






posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 





Censorship is not inherently bad


It's definately not inherently good, that's for sure.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


That's an interesting point you raise about the T&C issue. It's not solely indicitive of a conspiracy against ATS though. I mod a busy (non conspiracy/non political) forum, and have noticed exactly the same behaviour with our trolls.

I believe it's nothing more than a method of grasping maximum attention with minimum work. They get the triple-whammy on the back of one incident.

1) They get to bitch about being slapped down for breaking the rules.

2) Next they get to bitch about being slapped down for complaining about being slapped down.

3) And of course, the BIG pay off, they get to bitch/gloat about number 2 proving how they were unjustly targeted from the start, and it's the mods who are facists/nazis/dictators/insert orwellian title here.

When you consider the positive extent to which the internet now allows strangers to converse and interact, it's the most pathetic and pointless form of behaviour online. It used to anger me, but now I just feel pity for the perpetrators.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I agree with you that this one deserves a star and flag, well sorta, I'm not going to star and flag it, but I think that the issue is relevant and it's not as frivolous as "Cool Space Pictures" and silly bs that claim to "Star and Flag this Mutha" no offense against those guys, but seriously, why star and flag something that does not belong in ATS, but BTS?

I appreciate that you try to reply to many people, my posts do not often get any reply, I bring up good points, but people just drift right by me, so I appreciate your response.

-Lahara



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 





Censorship is not inherently bad


It's definately not inherently good, that's for sure.



Ok, but there is a time when it's beneficial



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


To whom?

2nd line.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I totally understand the Mods decision behind this...and commend them all on a great site.

I would like to add a couple of my own opinions, especially regarding the two main controversial topics: drug use, and the 'holocaust not what we were told.'

I think to maintain an equilibrium and satisfy both the pro-site owners, and the pro-free speech parties, a more complicated answer is necessary. Just simply banning topics will never do, in my opinion.

Someone suggested maintaining classy statements, and integrity in the topics regarding these, and I think this is closer to the answer. If a thread of these topics gets derailed by nasty comments, than close all of the threads until people learn to be respectful and intelligent and mature in the topics.

I, for one, think that in the Ancient and Lost Cultures/Civ., it is almost CERTAINLY appropriate to engage in discussions about drug usage- but clean and mature, of course. We still do not know the origins of language, and psychedelic drugs may just be what created the 'jump' in intelligence that science requires. It may not be, but we cannot rule it out- it takes discussions by educated folks like us, and I think no other site on the internet can handle it if ATS doesn't.

If it takes a high-security place on ATS to discuss it, I am all for it. By talking about these issues we become more mature about them, than if we just shut the door on them.

I also would like to acknowledge how touchy the holocaust subject is, and I think that the same precautions should be taken as in the drug case. These subjects should be maturely handled. If we find out by intelligent discussion that the holocaust did indeed happen as it was sold to us, then so be it. But what if by denying ignorance we discover a different TRUTH? It is unlikely, in my opinion, but an educated skeptic does not draw lines.

I really hope ATS will be able to accommodate these issues, as they are two of the most relevant and important issues that determine current events, and historical events.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Wow I stepped away from page one as
A Conspiracy Against ATS

to page 9 of censorship how the heck .......

Here I was digging through the net reading posts from old banned members complaining, and trying to get others not to enjoy ATS.

Reading the excuse of why they were banned and them actually linking to a thread or two.

Then reading their post going WOW they totally got that wrong no wonder they were banned.

But really there are people out there forming from ATS is Rouge Intel to people actually telling others not to join this site because we are all S.O.'s brainwashed Children.

So it is possible for all the disruption to be caused by other sites and hostel ex members



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


I know you're answering a lot of posts so maybe you missed mine. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind answering it? For your convenience, here is a repost


Good so we know for sure your position embraces unrestrained freedom of speech under any circumstances.
Well what if person A were to call Homeland security and say person B was a terrorist even knowing person B was not a terrorist. Based on your logic, this would be ok. Would it still be ok if you were person B? Or are you starting to see that freedom of speech is not absolute??

Thanks in advance. I appreciate your response.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Selected quotes of the T&C




1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

3) Content Copyright: By posting on this message board, you relinquish all exclusive copyright privileges to the material you post and you grant The Owners non-exclusive rights to publish your posts in perpetuity in all forms. The Above Network, LLC has the authority to decide to display your postings or not, and modify your posts to remove offensive material, modify your post title to accurately reflect content, remove vulgar comments, remove insults or delete any other content deemed inappropriate, at our discretion. Photos and graphic images posted to your media portal "My Pictures" and "My Photo Gallery" sections do not fall under this non-exlusive license agreement.

5b) Cooperation: You will, if asked by myself or a moderator, cease posting any content, and/or links to content, deemed offensive, objectionable, or in poor taste by the representatives of the message board.

8) Right of Community Management This is a privately owned discussion board community. The Owners and senior moderator staff reserve the right to take action against any member who is deemed to be devoted purely to disruption, whose actions represent behavior contrary to community building, or whose content is contrary to the core ideals of AboveTopSecret.com. This action may include complete banning of your username and IP address. The owners of The Above Network, LLC reserve the right to eliminate or edit any content deemed inappropriate for the discussion boards, news network or any affiliated sites.

9)Term of These Agreed Upon Conditions By joining the website(s) governed under these Terms And Conditions, you agree to honor these rules for so long as your account status remains active, and for 18 months after the termination of any account privileges due to violation of these conditions or other guidelines.



I know that Intrepid lives in Canada and I do not recall seeing Bill Irvine, Mark Allin nor Simon Gray listed in the Congressional Rolls. Therefore there is no completely free speech granted nor implied that I can see.

But not that I have to mention this but FredT and I had quite the U2U exchange in which we agreed to agree...however shortly in this case, and we could continue to disagree whenever we have opposing view points.

Now to bring this back on topic:

As frustrating as it may be Nef, perhaps having these "sleeper accounts" are a positive thing. In the cases of COINTELPRO, they could monitor and then begin to wake to steer us away from topics that getting to be too close to the truth.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by Cuhail
 



No, (you) don't get it. My problem is not directly the stance ATS is taking, but the way it is portrayed, as not being censorship, digusts me.



Then your argument does not belong in this thread. Thanks for bringing it so off topic that it's no longer about what Nef was elluding to, but, about your own problems with the site's rules.

I loathe to say...."Mission Accomplished, sir".

I'm done replying to you in this thread, but, I hope you do the Debate thread vs. 'trep. I'll root you on there.

Cuhail


[edit on 2/28/2009 by Cuhail]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Is discussing drugs on public forumns legal in the united states? I am quite certain that in many countries it is not! Perhaps ats does not wish to allow such discussion for fear of lawsuits. In that case I don't blame them!

And whats the big deal if you can't discuss this topic? Not all topics are
suitable for public discourse and for good reason I might add....common sense!



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


To whom?

2nd line.



To everybody, mainly those wishing to prevent disruptive, destructive and abusive acts



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join