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.

 

I am NOT a "truther"! And it will end.

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I don't ever really talk about my skepticisms with anyone anymore. . .

Most think I'm nuts from the steady diet of broad brush strokes and labels they've been fed over the last 9 years. . .

Anyone questioning the official story or events of that day believes in every conspiracy that ever existed.

What's being discussed here is very real.

2PacSade-




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Violet Sky
 


So I ask a question but no one wants to answer it.

Where does it say that if you believe an event was a conspiracy, by the definition of the word, you are necessarily any different than anyone else in any other way?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Ding! Bravo and very well said. For both sides of ANY debate or topic. This has been my approach lately. More and more we are seeing threads, especially in the 911 forum, where one side or the other begins to associate or place people who argue for one side into a single group. They usually take, in the debunkers case, the absolute worse theory provided on a topic and use that single off the wall theory to generalize everyone who believes that there is a conspiracy.

What ends up happening is that I get frustrated and end up falling into the same trap. I think it may be a game for many of those on here that try to do the generalizing. They want to gode you into replying with emotion and anger instead of rational thought.

So I say to you, and I don't say this very often at all, S & F for you and bravo!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
... I hear the debunkers elsewhere are better than ours, but I cant join that forum as they would not accept a pseudonym. Anyway most of our debunkers here do a terrible job at debunking, as do most of our truthers.



And this point is right on the nose. Well, for the 911 forum at least. I don't think that it can be used on many of the other subjects because I have seen some excellent work done on the pyramids, Cayce, Crop Circles, Free energy and on and on.

However, when it comes to the 911 debunking, I must say you are right on the nose. There are few of the 911 debunkers that actually bring any substance to the threads. Then for that matter, the same can be said for many of the people that are in support of 'a' conspiracy.

Why is this? Well, because the average person on this planet is not:

a) an investigative reporter
b) a true theorist
c) scientist
d) or any other of the various careers or hobbies that could produce a very well thought out and researched thread

We are average people trying to discuss some of the greatest conspiracies, discoveries, breaking news events and on and on. That's it. So the quality may not be there but the passion is. That is what keeps me coming back.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I just wanted to add a mighty AMEN to this thread, I'm sick of it. It's deteriorated to the point where we have one poster even going so far as to call us 'twofers', the mods do nothing about it despite it's clear intention of being an insult. I'd be willing to bet if we reversed the stereotype and created the antithesis calling them Liars, or I guess more appropriately, Lie-ers, the hammer would fall on us pretty quickly.
I think we are a growing demographic despite their extensive and probably expensive campaign to demonize us, so the text book strategy is shift focus on us personally rather than to attack the information. What else is left to them really?

[edit on 9-9-2009 by twitchy]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Conspiracy can be real, not everything is a strange myth or theory.

I wish I lived during the time the world was flat, I'd jump off.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by theuhstuf]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
I just wanted to add a mighty AMEN to this thread, I'm sick of it. It's deteriorated to the point where we have one poster even going so far as to call us 'twofers', the mods do nothing about it despite it's clear intention of being an insult. I'd be willing to bet if we reversed the stereotype and created the antithesis calling them Liars, or I guess more appropriately, Lie-ers, the hammer would fall on us pretty quickly.
I think we are a growing demographic despite their extensive and probably expensive campaign to demonize us, so the text book strategy is shift focus on us personally rather than to attack the information. What else is left to them really?

[edit on 9-9-2009 by twitchy]


I saw the word beLIEve spelled intentionally here once. I think lie-OrS would be apropriate, however it just wouldnt be obnoxious enough. "Twoofer" implies lolcats and makes you just want to punch your monitor in all its 5th gradeness.

The problem is you have to draw the line somewhere. You used to be able to curse and see the curses if you paid with your points. Problem is no matter what kind of rule you make any idiot can go out and author the flavor of the month thread and get a zillion stars/stripes/flags/way above top secret votes they want. This week its Charlie Sheen/Alex Jones. last monthy it was crop circles. 4 years ago it was John Titor. And then they can "get the power" and disrupt the boards.

Whatever. typical truther resonse. (sic)



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I agree 100 percent with the author of this thread; I was called a racist Nazi within the timeframe of a week or even less.

Quite a glorious road someone might say.

And unquestionably it all fuels up from religious messengers.

The "debatetable" forums on this site; politcs, social agenda, archeology, science products and technology, World Views, Philosophy, are all quite "all right".

I made the mistake of contributing into the religious forums; conspiracies in religion and origins of creationism [ah, as IF], but I end up wanted to beat the #e out of my laptop.

It reminded me old school days.

It sickens me though; used to be quite a religious man, regarding arguments for History of "religion" and its Teachings; against no other than "scientific blitzkrieg".

As years have passed though, I cant even stand them.

There are somewhat of undeveloped children; undeveloped because they always want to run back into their Holy Past and hide into the oblivion; Children because instead of dedicating themselves to their Real Father, they insist that what is there is not true and someone else gave them birth and vision.

I bet who ever is religious, will take this extremely offensive because each and everyone out of them will not take a big f*** breath and see underneath the words; that I am not attacking your moral grounds and ethical duties but something else; bigger than them and their pity egos.

But what do I know eh?

Thanks for letting me rant.

Goodnight.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420



"Twoofer" implies lolcats and makes you just want to punch your monitor in all its 5th gradeness.




Truther & Woo combined.

Truther = 911 Conspiracy Theorist

Woo=


What Is "Woo"?

You’ll see me (and skeptics in general) talking about “woo.” (Sometimes “woo woo”, but I prefer just “woo.”)

Woo is a word skeptics use as shorthand to describe pseudo-scientific and often anti-scientific ideas - ideas that are irrational and not based on evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the claim. These are ideas that usually rely on magical thinking, are rarely tested to see if they are real, and are usually resistant to reason and contrary evidence.

A woo can also be a person who hold those beliefs. So you could say, for example, “homeopathy is woo” or “woos believe in homeopathy.”

Its use has been criticized because it is seen as insulting. Maybe, but its use is not fallacious if you explain why the woo belief is a woo belief. Irrational beliefs based on magical thinking should be ridiculed. Alternative terms such as “believer” don’t really cut it, in my view.


skeptico.blogs.com...

So, no need to punch your screen.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Every single so-called "skeptic" or "debunker" I see here suffers a form of discrimination that is the definition of ignorant.

Without having ever met me personally, or knowing anything about my life, I am accused of being in some organized cult, of having a virus, of being psychologically disturbed and all number of completely unwarranted accusations that amount to ad hominem.


Skeptics are not called "DUH-bunkers" Bsbray? We are all accused of being "Shills", "dis-info" spreaders, "Government Loyalists", etc. WHO CARES? It's an internet message board. You don't like what one person posts? Use that little "IGNORE" button that is provided for you. If you are still upset over a goofy label. Find another forum. To allow a message board to "irritate" you is ridiculous.

Of all those that question the history of 911 on this forum,(how's that instead of twoofer?) you seem to be one of the brighter ones. I'm quite surprised that you felt compelled to start a thread whining about being called a turther.

Sorry.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


My problem isn't an emotional problem, that I take it personally.

My problem is allowing the word (actually I have finally seen "twoofer" moderated) allows the poster to go off into rants that are ad hom and distract from every single topic they are allowed on.

If ad hom were really disallowed, then topics would not be as disrupted, and posters would have to be clearer in their arguments, not just ranting about "truthers."



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I think I understand where the OP is coming from. No one likes to be labeled with easy, cheap shot labels that are used to provide opposition to an argument without actually disputing the details of it's merits. That kind of thing creeps into a lot of discussions. I think of it as a price one pays for involvement in such an open access public forum.

I think ATS is a very important forum. I think it is influential and read by many people who don't even post on it. Even if that were not true, it would still be important based on the "hundredth monkey syndrome" alone.

I believe that if one hundred or more people arrive at a consensus of any sort, then that has a way of permeating the society as a whole. People who think that is nonsense do so at their peril, in my opinion.

More than one hundred of us "truth monkeys" have arrived at a broad consensus about 9/11 through the good offices of ATS and the outstanding folks who own it and run it. I'm very grateful for the forum and willing to put up with just about anything in terms of catcalls and irrelevancies to be able to participate in the consensus building process.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
If I was God, I would ban all the "Woos" in here and allocate the Sceptis from that blog;

skeptico.blogs.com...

into their positions.

Outstanding thread.

ATS should be more often like that.

Woo me.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Great post, only a twisted sinister source could tarnish a word like TRUTH and make it almost of heretic status, only one reason that this would be so.

If there was profit in it Bush and co would declare war on peace.

Proud to be one of those related to the word TRUTH
.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I use the term "truther" to refer to anyone who is seeking the truth about anything...and asking questions, examining evidence, and attempting to construct rational conclusions from pro and con information.

I think you have decided on your own definition of "truther" and therefore you consider it an insult and a cult.

Your definition and mine are not at all the same.
"Truther" is not specific to anything 9-11 related.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethea
I use the term "truther" to refer to anyone who is seeking the truth about anything...


That's good for you, but people are still using it to stop up 9/11 threads. It's denial summed up in a single word. You can discount anything with it by just saying, "Oh, he's/she's just a truther..."

Words are just tools. If you use the same word for something else, more power to you; I just object to how the word is practically used by others.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join