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.

 

The U.F.O. Party Gatecrashers

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Who expect to be treated in a different way?
What I meant is that people get attacked by any reason, so the fact that something may be considered the "norm" on ATS it does not mean that you would not be attacked, aggressive people exist in any side of any discussion, and I have seen many "believers" (for the lack of a better word) attacking people that do not agree with them, even if they accept the possibility of extraterrestrial life and even if they agree in other occasions.




posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Concept X
Totally agree, why post or even read the Aliens and UFO's section if you have 100% convinced yourself that they do not, never have and never will exist.


Precisely.

It seems clear that the only reason such people have for coming here is to mock and insult and hinder the discussions of those who do consider this as a possibility or a truth and to endlessly repeat that they are wrong and stupid for even considering it.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
There is an option that I've been thinking about. It wouldn't be too hard to do.

ATS could have a set of thread forums dedicated to PRO /CON
Any individual who wanted to post in those forums would be required to register for them and their profile information would reflect the fact.

For example, if member x wanted to post in the UFO believers column, he would simply have to open a tab in his member tools and select UFO -Believer. and he would be free to post there.

The catch is that these selections would be permanent for the poster and would be reflected in the members profile.

Any members who entered the specific belief forum for discussion and trolled or worked contrary to their selected pro/con declaration would be removed by the mods and not get a second chance.

We could limit it to a pro forum and a con forum for each major topic of conflict and this would allow like minded members an outlet for discussion while still leaving the original ATS mediums intact.

We could have minimum requirements so that these forums would not be open to the random or newly registered trollers and could even limit these forums by a history of participation in open threads.

It could be called "The Locker Room" or something along those lines. And would allow some of the in depth or even partizan discussions to occur without being trolled or disrupted. These of course won't be as balanced as an open forum but would be interesting to see what develops.

I think it would add an interesting facet to ATS without changing things that are already going on.


Oh yeah,

VERY IMPORTANT

There would be no stars or flags for threads or posts in the locker rooms.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by badgerprints]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Not quite, I was suggesting that when people simply post straighforward denial, as in, "There is no ET life and we are not being visited by ETs. UFO's are not ET craft. Stop wasting your time with such fantasies", then that is pointless and counterproductive to this forum and will only serve to cause conflict.
I was basing my posts on this sentence from the opening post:


IMO, participation in the Aliens and UFO forum thread should, at the very least, require openmindedness to the POSSIBILITY that ETs exist and that some UFO's may be ET craft.
If it would be a requirement to be open-minded to the possibility that ETs exist and that some UFOs may be ET craft then why shouldn't it be also a requirement to be open-minded to the possibility that there are no ETs and that UFOs are not ET craft?

A requirement, to me, means a condition that should be met before doing something, so in this case it would mean that those people would not be accepted in this forum, but maybe my interpretation of the word is wrong.

Anyway, a "yes-men" forum would not have half the interest as a forum where there are several opinions.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 

I don't like that idea because it would be a source of polarisation of a subject that is already too polarised, even in the "believer" and "sceptic" sides, and it would refrain (or prevent) people from changing sides (or, if possible, they would never be seen with the same eyes as before, for some they would have "turned to the enemy" while for the other they would never be as "pure" as those that had the same opinion from the beginning.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Concept X
Totally agree, why post or even read the Aliens and UFO's section if you have 100% convinced yourself that they do not, never have and never will exist.


We could pose the opposite question: Why post or read the forum if you are 100% convinced they exist or know what UFOs are?

I agree with ArMaP's sentiment. The answer is not to discriminate between people, because it'll end up creating a segregated community of like-minded people, that are only aware and receptive of each other's similar opinions and perspectives. And that absolutely goes nowhere.

There's no point in trying to limit the reasons why people should be allowed to post on the forum. ATS rules are enough. If you obey all the rules and guidelines your post is accepted. If you make a fool of yourself, that's your own problem, but it's within your right to do so.

Don't like the pseudoskeptics? I don't either, but I hope they continue to post because I love deconstructing and destroying their posts. Besides being fun it's also a great demonstration and hopefully a learning process to others, to see how not to approach this, or how to avoid fall into the denialist/pseudoskeptic logical traps.

My advice is to be aware of all those pseudoskeptics as well as true believers, and point out the flaws in their arguments and posts. If you're not up for it, just don't get involved in that. Get involved in whatever area, or threads, that you like.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by converge]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I'm pretty new here but it's the UFO stuff that brought me here in the first place.
I fully expect that there's going to be people who absolutely deny the fact that UFOs even exist and they are going to be drawn to the alien-UFO forum to make that point.
Still, this is the internet and you just can't be too thin skinned about people ridiculing anything you post or you probably shouldn't be posting to the internet in the first place.
I agree they add nothing to any real discussion but hey- it's their opinion and isn't freely expressing your opinion what any discussion forum is about?

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
-Voltaire



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Who expect to be treated in a different way?
What I meant is that people get attacked by any reason, so the fact that something may be considered the "norm" on ATS it does not mean that you would not be attacked, aggressive people exist in any side of any discussion, and I have seen many "believers" (for the lack of a better word) attacking people that do not agree with them, even if they accept the possibility of extraterrestrial life and even if they agree in other occasions.


I don't think you understand, if you want to attack other members speculations and opinions, that's fine. But some of the ATS visitors don't even give a damn about the 'norm' of ATS, the premise of ATS, they just bash them for being here and believing in UFOs. Don't you get it, that's what this thread is all about!

I kinda expect a better etiquette from this people. Maybe it can't be helped, perhaps they're simply looking for conflict. But ATS is not a neutral ground, it's slanted toward the believer, the conspiracist, the speculators. And ridiculing them here, telling them as they don't have anything else better to do.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
If it would be a requirement to be open-minded to the possibility that ETs exist and that some UFOs may be ET craft then why shouldn't it be also a requirement to be open-minded to the possibility that there are no ETs and that UFOs are not ET craft?


Hi ArMap. I don't mean to be rude, but it's like your political correctness is undermining common sense somewhat here.

This is an Aliens and UFO discussion forum. Not a skeptical society. Having set the premise of the forum, it would seem absurd to then insist that everyone who joins accept that there may not be any ET life in the universe and that it may not be visiting earth - especially when many here have direct experiences which convince them otherwise - and to expect this perspective to be given as much weight as the possibility that ETs do exist and may be visiting earth. Don't you see how silly that is?

This whole forum is built upon the premise that it's POSSIBLE for those things to be true, and it moves forward from that possibility towards the investigation of that possibility. That is it's raison d'etre. What would be the point of getting people to continually acknowledge that the premise may not be true? Where do we go from there? What purpose does that serve? I don't think you're being reasonable here.

And anyway, of course people who accept that it may not be true that ETs exist or are visiting earth have a place here. A true skeptic considers all possibilities.

But we are not talking about true skeptics, we're talking about people who deem it impossible and who categorically state that ETs DO NOT exist and HAVE NOT visited earth, and who deride those who believe these things. That's quite different.



Anyway, a "yes-men" forum would not have half the interest as a forum where there are several opinions.


Agreed, and I think we have enough 'heat' with legitimate skeptics debating with believers, without closed minded, active deniers in the mix. LOL

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
But ATS is not a neutral ground, it's slanted toward the believer, the conspiracist, the speculators.


No. ATS is slanted towards inquisitive people, that's why the motto is "deny ignorance" not "deny disbelief".

Believing something is not the same as not being ignorant about that something. You can believe something and be completely ignorant about what it really is about.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by converge]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

No. ATS is slanted towards inquisitive people


But Converge, this is an 'Aliens and UFO forum'. Obviously it's targeted at those who believe in such things or who are at least open to the possibility. I think it's a measure of how far the culture of pseudo-skeptical 'debunkery' has entrenched itself and come to dominate at ATS as the status quo that this even has to be pointed out. (I'm not calling you a pseudo-skeptic here, just to be clear
)

And if ATS was merely for "inquisitive people" that would still disbar those who have a closed mind and activiely deny the possibility of ET life. They are not "inquisitive people". Their "inquiry" is over and they have decided it's all rubbish and we are idiots for considering it.


that's why the motto is "deny ignorance" not "deny disbelief".


In this case disbelief is ignorance because there is no sound basis to insist that it's impossible for ET life to exist and that it cannot visit earth. Skepticism is reasonable, but denial of the very possibility - active disbelief - is ignorant, and is certainly contrary to and unhelpful the purpose of this forum.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
I kinda expect a better etiquette from this people. Maybe it can't be helped, perhaps they're simply looking for conflict.
If they act like that then just hit the "Alert" button, that's why it exists.


But ATS is not a neutral ground, it's slanted toward the believer, the conspiracist, the speculators. And ridiculing them here, telling them as they don't have anything else better to do.
I prefer to think that ATS gives the conspiracists and speculators an equal ground to discuss their opinions, and for that it should be a neutral ground.

Maybe my optimism makes me see things as more neutral, but that is what I would really like to see, a neutral ground where anyone can present their ideas and discuss them without being attacked and/or ridiculed because of them, with the bullies and troublemakers put on a short-leash or banned if they do not act as they should.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by badgerprints
 

I don't like that idea because it would be a source of polarisation of a subject that is already too polarised, even in the "believer" and "sceptic" sides, and it would refrain (or prevent) people from changing sides (or, if possible, they would never be seen with the same eyes as before, for some they would have "turned to the enemy" while for the other they would never be as "pure" as those that had the same opinion from the beginning.


It will be easy to pick apart something new. It always happens.
The idea isn't to think of a thousand reasons not to try something new but to find reasons to do something new that may be productive.

Not everybody needs to be able to derail every thread that rolls and call the participants idiots and fools for having an opinion. This site allows plenty of leeway to prevent others from following the line of thought or discussion in a thread and the vast majority of what goes on here is thread stopping and ego driven “stick in the spokes” activity.
A new way to discuss things wouldn't destroy ATS and might even have benefits that aren't readily apparent.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I see I was not clear, what I meant is that any requirement would be a limiting factor and would create segregation in a site that is supposed to embrace all theories, as long as the people presenting them behave according to the Terms & Conditions, if they do them it means a discussion, even if not constructive, can exist.

To make a long story short, I think the rules are not the problem, we all just have to be more on the lookout for those disturbing members and act accordingly.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
But Converge, this is an 'Aliens and UFO forum'. Obviously it's targeted at those who believe in such things or who are at least open to the possibility.


It's not targeted at those who believe, much less obviously targeted. Have you read the header in any of the forum's threads?


This forum is dedicated to the discussion of historic and contemporary events related to extraterrestrial encounters, UFO sightings, and speculation about related subjects. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of the existence of extraterrestrials and the related conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups.

ATS acknowledges that the responses will likely tend to lean in favor of existence of extraterrestrials, not that it's targeted to the people who hold those opinions.

It goes on to say that,


Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of supporting the examination of the "extraterrestrial phenomenon" on the related conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and scandals.

So, ATS also acknowledges that people will come here to refute those theories, and the only request ATS makes is that they should be mindful of [ATS'] tradition of looking at the evidence, and basing those arguments on the examination of such evidence.

The only thing that is obvious from reading this is that ATS, by default, acknowledges that people who participate have a tendency of believing in extraterrestrials or that UFOs have such an origin, not that the forum was created specifically for those people.

One could even argue that this 'warning' is not so much for the believers, but for the skeptics or the undecided, so they understand what is it to be expected here.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Perhaps. I still think that those who have made up their mind that ETs and ET/UFOs are impossible and who are only here to repeat "You're wrong!" should not be able to post.

But then I also think that Badgerprints suggestion was excellent.

Because many members are completely turned off by the often rude and dismissive atmosphere and combative culture of the Aliens and UFO forum, I think it would be an excellent idea to have 'oases of calm' - separate sections for 'believers' and 'disbelievers' - with the main forum as a debating area between then two.

Something should change because the rules as they are now are simply not working, IMO.

This place has come to have a reputation as a cynical debunkers paradise where the pseudo-skeptics rule the roost and drive off all but the thickest skinned of the open-minded and sincere with sneering sarcasm and artfully deployed logical fallacies, which I think is rather sad.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Concept X
Totally agree, why post or even read the Aliens and UFO's section if you have 100% convinced yourself that they do not, never have and never will exist.


We could pose the opposite question: Why post or read the forum if you are 100% convinced they exist or know what UFOs are?

My advice is to be aware of all those pseudoskeptics as well as true believers, and point out the flaws in their arguments and posts. If you're not up for it, just don't get involved in that. Get involved in whatever area, or threads, that you like.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by converge]


Well, yes, they could but thats an easier question to answer than vice versa as you could say for example " Because i want to discuss the latest sightings and/or experience" etc etc,

I agree that everyone should get involved in whichever area they like but what i dont agree with is people who come in and just make a flat out post saying for example "it will never happen" or something along the lines of that, people who come in who dont believe and the post they make has some merit to it and involves some actual discussion rather than the usual posts are great and should be welcomed, it should never be a one sided topic.

The only thing ATS could do as said previously in this thread, is add a section to your profile where you say you believe or dont and then you gain access, however that would then leave out people who are "on the fence" and people who dont believe but make good constructive posts, which i like it, just not certain posts.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Malcram
But Converge, this is an 'Aliens and UFO forum'. Obviously it's targeted at those who believe in such things or who are at least open to the possibility.


It's not targeted at those who believe, much less obviously targeted. Have you read the header in any of the forum's threads?


This forum is dedicated to the discussion of historic and contemporary events related to extraterrestrial encounters, UFO sightings, and speculation about related subjects. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of the existence of extraterrestrials and the related conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups.


Hi converge. I actually said "Obviously it's targeted at those who believe in such things or who are at least open to the possibility"

I stand by that and I think the ATS quote you posted backs that up.

Let's be reasonable here. if you go into a shop and a product has 'Beans' written on it, do you think it's targeted at people who like beans, or people who hate them, and who might want to buy them to indulge their distaste for beans? LOL

This is an "Aliens and UFO" forum. Now when people discover it or see it come up in a Google search do you think that it's mostly people who are open to the possibility of the truth of these things, or perhaps who already believe, who are looking for it and want to participate?

Is ATS really aimed at the people who think "I absolutely don't believe in Aliens or UFO's, I really must find an Aliens and UFO forum to express my absolute disbelief".

And what are we to think of such people? "Hmm, I think it's absolutely impossible that Aliens or ET piloted UFOs exist. What nonsense! People who believe that are idiots. I must find a forum where I can find people who believe this and tell them what idiots they are for believing such utter hogwash"

That is not what ATS was created for.


ATS acknowledges that the responses will likely tend to lean in favor of existence of extraterrestrials, not that it's targeted to the people who hold those opinions.

It goes on to say that,


Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of supporting the examination of the "extraterrestrial phenomenon" on the related conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and scandals.

So, ATS also acknowledges that people will come here to refute those theories, and the only request ATS makes is that they should be mindful of [ATS'] tradition of looking at the evidence, and basing those arguments on the examination of such evidence.


Again, I think the ATS quote lends more weight to what I have been saying. In layman's terms, members who come here to refute the ETH should be aware that ATS was created to "support the examination of the 'extraterrestrial phenomenon", NOT to stifle it!

And to "refute" means to prove a theory wrong, which would involve evidence and reason, not to simply repeatedly insist that it is absurd and that anyone who believes it is an idiot, which is what I am talking about.

But if there is a reasoned evidence based refutation of the very possibility of ET life and visitation which would justify the absolute denial of these things then I'd love to hear it.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Concept X
I agree that everyone should get involved in whichever area they like but what i dont agree with is people who come in and just make a flat out post saying for example "it will never happen" or something along the lines of that


And how is that different from the people who say "it will happen in X months"? You don't like the ones saying it won't happen because it goes against your personal beliefs, not because it's an intellectually dishonest argument.

More, this notion that only "open-minded" people should be allowed to post is also a dishonest one, because it's painfully clear that in this context "open-minded" means believer.

Because if it truly is a matter of open-mindedness then an open-minded person would have to be open to all possibilities, and that includes possibilities that the true believers fundamentally reject.

What people should do, rather than believing or denying is acknowledge that while some possibilities are more likely than others, the jury is still out on what is actually happening.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by converge]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Edward 1st
It's not about punishing people it's about separating people according to beliefs.
And that, for me, is punishment, seeing that we would be limiting their free movements on ATS.


So separating people according to beliefs, but also giving them a common ground is punishment in your eyes? Your logic is flawed. This is not punishment. You have either very little knowledge on how to get the best out of people and/or you’re heavily influenced by the politically correct jargon, or you know exactly what you’re doing and wish for slow and little progress.

Will you please explain to me why you choose the disruptive classroom? Or do you want to revert back to saying segregation with common ground is punishment and prove to me your not worth talking to?



Just like Muslims don’t go to church and Christians don’t go to mosques.

But in this case it would be like not allowing Muslims or the Christians on a neutral place, like a cinema, just because the Christians or Muslims didn't want them there.


Did I not mention a common ground debate forum?


This is a problem on many forums I visit. You’ve got to wonder what the people in charge want if they just continue to just to sit and watch their disruptive classroom. Their vote is obviously for no progress.

That is why I said that we (and in that "we" I mean we, ATS members) should "police" ourselves; if there is someone disrupting a discussion just send an alert.


This doesn’t solve anything. We’re in that position now and it doesn’t work. From your comments, this broken system is the way you want.

There are many topics on many forums where people with an agenda who aren’t genuine are only there to disrupt. Zionists have agents in forums solely to protect their cause. I imagine this is true for other sensitive subjects.

I personally would like to know who owns and runs this site as after reading it for quite a few years, I regard them as not being impartial.




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join