reply to post by Majic
I notice
you put lots of
links while talking in your posts. Who came up with it first: You or Wikipedia?
Just playing (but don't hesitate to answer
). Anyway.....
Down to real business:
Well,
Magic I can completely agree with everything you are saying. I guess when you used the word scholarly, you really hit a neuron somewhere
in my brain that gave me a good vision of the future.
Frankly, there has always been a few things that worried me on ATS, and one of them is "The Trend of Authority". This was obviously portrayed very
well in Animal Farm, and now in the U.S.'s government and probably other countless governments, so I do not have to go into detail.
Why do I even care you may and definitely have the right to ask? You could say, "Your avatar now suits you very well and any political avatar would
just plain suck in hope of complementing your 'ATS name' ".
My answer would be merely due to my empathetic nature. I put myself in the shoes of people who desire to put up avatars that express their disgust for
political candidates without using words.
I think what is happening here in regards to this avatar ordeal is that
Skeptic Overlord (and perhaps other figures of authority), saw a
minority of digressive,
ad hominem type arguments arise due to the explicit nature of some avatars. In other words, it seems as though instead
of dealing with the arguments, "he" is trying to find the root cause of some of them.
Although at first blush I want to agree with what that thought process and action taken, I also want to say even though that may be a potential root
cause of some minor arguments here on ATS, that actually it is the person at the computer who is at fault. People who like to "throw mud" due to an
avatar cannot be changed so easily, and will most likely leave or be banned. Either they have lost the arugument or that is all they have been taught
(most likely from family environment).
Furthermore, like you said
Magic, if we want to crack down on senseless, digressive arguments, let the common members do some work for a change
and let them hit that alert button more often. Don't punish the innocent.
My point is, I believe there will always be "mud slinging",
ad hominem attacks, etc. To take away the free, wordless expression of some who
did not intend on ever attacking others is unjust. Can the minority who "mud sling" due to avatars really have the much of an affect on the
authority of ATS?
Now I understand this is their site. They own it, etc.
However, to put a far-fetched, conspiracy idea into perspective, how do we know this minority ruining it for the many, are not just hired by outside
sources to agitate the staff and members to the point where they have to change the rules, little by little. This is a small business is it not? What
makes the ATS authority think they would be treated any differently? This does not even count the fact that this a a conspiracy site and could be
seen as a terrorist site, plotting against its government.
Therefore:
Slow change is what ruined the U.S. I may be stretching it but...
Lets not ATS fall victim to slow, non-progressive change!
But I guess the key word there would be "progressive" isn't it? The fundamental difference is whether or not this change helps further the progress
of ATS towards the vision in which the founders initially saw. Bu that is another topic...
Anyway. It has been fun. ttyl
[edit on 18-8-2009 by Unlimitedpossibilities]
I find a lot of arguments to be that way. 
