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: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
I think your signature perfectly describes what you are doing here. Open-minded you are definitely not!


What a strange comment. My signature is about pseudo-skepticism. Do you know what that is? That is a serious question and is not meant to be rude because no one who understood what pseudo-skepticism was would see opposing it as a 'bad thing'. Have you read the articles linked in my signature? I am opposed to pseudo-skepticism, as everybody who is interested in honest reasoned debate is, both skeptic and 'believer' alike. How you can conclude that my signature exposing pseudo-skepticism is indicative of a closed mind I cannot begin to fathom.

Are you in favour of pseudo-skepticism? Are you an advocate of pseudo-skepticism? Do you resent people opposing it, as my signature does?



Instead of attacking me I would have liked you to address my questions and statements re proof of ET's existence. To me, that's the core point in your initial statement.


I haven't "attacked" you. Rather you have been combative and sarcastic with me from the beginning. I pointed out you were off topic. And your questions, as I have already explained, have absolutely nothing to do with the topic here. I've said, and apparently have to say again, if you want to discuss a different topic to the one in the OP here, then create your own thread.



I believe that your OP is fundamentally flawed.


Fair enough, but the reasons you give for this stance don't apply to the statements I have made here and misrepresent my position. As already said, the rules of ATS PROHIBIT the kinds of posts I am talking about so your defense of them and those who post them is in contradiction of the rules of ATS. Take the issue up with ATS if you feel that is unfair.


I always felt that allowing a dissenting opinion is the strongest sign of a healthy community.....You seem to disagree


Nope. You are grossly misrepresenting my position. Reread my earlier posts. Although I have trouble believing you have read them at all.

I'll make this as simple as possible by means of a question:

Are you intent on defending and advocating posts which say things such as the following:

"Haha! Wake up! There are NO ALIENS! Sorry to break it to you. There will be no disclosure EVER because there is nothing to disclose because ETs do not exist and so have NOT visited earth. Period! You people need to stop playing with this fantasy, stop watching so much sci-fi and GROW UP!"

That is the basically the level of post the OP and this thread is about. This is what you have been defending.

Why?


[edit on 26-10-2009 by Malcram]




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
I'm not defending any posts, I'm defending the freedom for everyone to post whatever they like, as long as they follow the rules.


The posts the OP and this thread is about do not "follow the rules".


So we could have avoided all this back and forth if you had just, privately or directly, asked for a clarification to your doubt from the moderators; but instead you ended up coming across as wanting to prohibit the participation of some members because they were 'annoying' to you.


You could have avoided it by not posting here (or perhaps by reading what I'd written more carefully instead of responding to things you'd wrongly imagined I'd said). Participation is not forced upon you. Clearly you dislike this thread intensely and feel compelled to oppose any challenge to prohibited posts containing sarcastic derision and closed minded denial.

And I'm sorry, but "coming across as" is your interpretation. I couldn't have been more clear about what I was referring to, as Marrs has pointed out to you several times, but either through laziness in not reading my posts carefully enough, or through fearful projection in imagining I said things I patently didn't, or purposefully with the intention of derailing the thread, some members have totally misrepresented what I have been saying, as you have done.


And, again, that was already standard procedure and made well aware of. I'm glad however that you are finally reassured that the rules that were in place before, will continue to be in place after your thread


You mean the rules you are opposing being enforced? The rules which have not been enforced at ATS recently, hence the recent crop of such posts as mentioned in the OP and the steady decline of the debate in the forum? Thanks to Springers reassurance and request for assistance made in this thread, members can feel encouraged to help monitor the forum more closely and alert the Mods when these rules are broken in future. Which is good news. I know I'll be more inclined to alert them in future.

The rules may be in place but sometimes their application can be neglected and it's good to be reminded of them and have them and the original purpose of this forum reaffirmed, when adherence to them is obviously slipping, don't you think?


[edit on 26-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Clearly you dislike this thread intensely and feel compelled to oppose any challenge to prohibited posts containing sarcastic derision and closed minded denial.


And I'm sorry, but "coming across as" is your interpretation.

Your mistaken characterization of why I'm posting in this thread is an interpretation too, so what's your point? And it's not like I was the only one to point out how your OP comes across.



You mean the rules you are opposing being enforced?

Talk about mischaracterizing one's position...



The rules which have not been enforced at ATS recently

Rules can only be enforced by moderators. Members can alert the moderators but if you are complaining about rules not being enforced i have to ask, is this thread directed at the moderators?



Thanks to Springers reassurance and request for assistance made in this thread, members can feel free to help monitor the forum more closely and alert the Mods when these rules are broken in future.

I know you want to feel like your thread added something to the forum, but a mechanism to deal with offenders, that you propose, is already in place. People were already free to help in monitoring the forum. And they did. I know I did alert moderators a few times where I encountered blatant violations of the T&C and they fixed the situation quickly and efficiently.



The rules may be in place but sometimes it's good to be remind of them and have them reaffirmed, when adherence to them slides, don't you think?

I have no problem with reminding people of this, but quite frankly I don't feel the situation is as dire as you paint it here in the Aliens & UFOs forum. And when abusers are running amok the moderators and the staff take measures and remind everyone of the rules, globally, through U2Us. You might have seen this happen before.

Your OP also calls for additional and harsher punishment of what's contemplated in the T&C, so don't argue that you're just asking for the rules to be enforced. And that's what some of us are against. Certainly it's why I am against what your OP proposes, and not defending abusers as you're trying to portray. Those offending posts, dependent on the gravity of what's been written of course, are usually removed and labeled off topic or T&C violations, and you were asking for "remov[al of] these members ability to post here".

Springer also cautioned that just because you think someone's post is in violation it will get removed. If you see these violations that you're describing as frequent, then do your job and alert the mods.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Look, I can do the same:



"Haha! Wake up! There are ALIENS! Sorry to break it to you. There will be disclosure because there is everything to disclose because ETs do exist and have visited earth. Period! You people need to play with this fantasy, watch sci-fi and GROW UP!"


I have seen those types of posts as well. Is this what you want ATS to be?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
There's one thing that I think should not be forgotten.

The fact that someone does not see alien life as a possibility does not mean that that person cannot discuss it with people who believe in that possibility, what that person (or anyone else) cannot do is disrupt the thread with posts that add nothing, like those "ET's do not exist, grow up" kind of post or even worse.

But those that keep on saying that the people that do not believe in the possibility of alien life are just "disinfo agents" or are not as "enlightened" as they are do not help the threads either, because their way of expressing their point of view does not allow any type of discussion either.

The same can be said about posts that appear in almost any thread with a video of a possible UFO, either the "chinese lanterns" when that is clearly not a possibility or those supposedly funny posts, mostly with just one line, saying that's "swamp gas" or "Venus". I can also add post like "debunk this" or "where are the sceptics now", that appear in many threads.

All those posts just disrupt the threads and do not help in any way the discussion.

One thing that can be done is when someone see a post that he/she considers offensive, just to be sure, ask the opinion of someone that he/she know shares his/her point of view, and if both consider it offensive then send an "Alert" to the staff, that way would help avoid alerts that may be the result of a wrong interpretation, for example.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The same can be said about posts that appear in almost any thread with a video of a possible UFO, either the "chinese lanterns" when that is clearly not a possibility or those supposedly funny posts, mostly with just one line, saying that's "swamp gas" or "Venus". I can also add post like "debunk this" or "where are the sceptics now", that appear in many threads.

All those posts just disrupt the threads and do not help in any way the discussion.


According to Malcram, it is only a problem when skeptics make such comments. When believers do the same, he considers it neither disruptive nor does he think it contributes to the supposed toxic atmosphere...


Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by converge
That description would deny participation to the true believers as well.

Having their mind made up goes both ways.


(You cut of my quote mid sentence)

Not really, because this forum is for the investigation of the "ET phenomenon" and so belief in the ET phenomenon does not hinder the purpose of this forum. Active disbelief and closed minded opposition to the very possibility of an "ET Phenomenon" and the value of it's investigation directly opposes the raison d'etre of this forum.

It doesn't work both ways.


And of course, he continues to mischaracterize the purpose of this forum.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
Your mistaken characterization of why I'm posting in this thread is an interpretation too, so what's your point?


So if you do not feel compelled to defend sarcastic and derisive posts which contain nothing but denial, then why are you defending sarcastic and derisive posts which contain nothing but denial?


And it's not like I was the only one to point out how your OP comes across.


No, you were not the only one to misrepresent what I was saying, despite it being explicit and repeated endlessly. Nor was Marrs the only one to point out that you and others were doing so and set you straight.


Rules can only be enforced by moderators. Members can alert the moderators but if you are complaining about rules not being enforced i have to ask, is this thread directed at the moderators?


The thread wasn't aimed at Moderators, but seeing as you raise the issue, yes, I think that the Moderators could be considerably more vigilant in enforcing ATS rules and upholding it's mission statement. When you read this mission statement and Springers comments in the sticky threads about what the forum 'should' be, what is appropriate and what is not and how discussions should be conducted etc. then it's clear that the forum is now nothing whatsoever like what was intended to be and has strayed far from it's stated goals and standards.

But as Springer also said, the Mods rely on the vigilance of members and on them alerting inappropriate posts (such as those the OP discusses). So it's everyone's responsibility to 'clean up Dodge', when the need arises. Of course, some 'desperados' aren't going to like that when it is suggested. Some get comfortable with a more lawless, 'wild west' ATS



I know you want to feel like your thread added something to the forum


As I know you would like me to feel it was worthless.


People were already free to help in monitoring the forum. And they did.


I disagree, as do others. Many think the forum is in a terrible state and has become unconducive to it's purpose due to elements such as those mentioned in the OP.


Your OP also calls for additional and harsher punishment of what's contemplated in the T&C, so don't argue that you're just asking for the rules to be enforced.


No, I made it clear I'm not asking for 'punishment' at all. And actually it turns out that what I am 'asking for' is already enshrined within the rules, they just haven't been applied fully recently. If they had the OP would not have been written. The solution to this is noted above and involves us all. If one were to judge by the forum, one would never guess that the rules prohibted such posts. But then, if one went by the forum, one would never guess it's original intended purpose or standards, as explained by Springer in the sticky threads.


Those offending posts, dependent on the gravity of what's been written of course, are usually removed and labeled off topic or T&C violations, and you were asking for "remov[al of] these members ability to post here".


Those posts are not usually removed, in my experience. Which is probably because they are not alerted, which in turn is probably because many people have become used to the degraded culture that has formed at ATS and are cynical about it ever changing.

And yes, if people repeatedly make posts exactly like those I mentioned in the OP and in following posts (such as saying "that there is nothing to investigate, because ETs don't exist and the whole investigation is futile and pointless") then yes, they will be prevented from posting, which is exactly what I suggested should happen in the OP.

As Springer said:


People who espouse such bollocks are not here to discuss and therefore will not be tolerated period.


Thats seems pretty clear to me.

At this stage, you just seem intent on insisting that the thread is worthless and that it has not achieved anything that I wanted it to, rather than actually discussing the OP itself. So again, this takes us off topic.

I'm happy that the subject the thread addresses needed to be raised and I'm pleased at the reaffirmation of the rules we have received and the reassurance that those who post such things as the OP addresses "will not be tolerated. Period"



[edit on 26-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
Look, I can do the same:



"Haha! Wake up! There are ALIENS! Sorry to break it to you. There will be disclosure because there is everything to disclose because ETs do exist and have visited earth. Period! You people need to play with this fantasy, watch sci-fi and GROW UP!"


I have seen those types of posts as well. Is this what you want ATS to be?



Not at all. I've never suggested it was. What is your point?

As irritating, pointless and deletion worthy as the above version is (for it's crassness and lack of respect) a member who writes such a thing is still obviously not closed minded to or opposed to the investigation this forum was created in order to support, that of the ETH in relation to UFOs.

A member who would write such things is a fool, and may be contravening the forums rules regarding civility and respect, but they do not stand in direct opposition to the very premise and purpose of the forum. That's the difference and it is crucial.

My OP is about finding ways to end unnecessary conflict in relation to upholding the purpose of the forum. Eliminating antagonistic and pointless posts which directly oppose this forums raison d'etre, such as those mentioned in the OP, would be an excellent start to this and I'm rather shocked that anyone would want to prevent this.

But, if I had my way, I'd ban anyone who wrote posts like that, no matter which 'camp' they belonged to. But that's not what this particular thread is about. LOL.


[edit on 26-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
At this stage, you just seem intent on insisting that the thread is worthless and that it has not achieved anything that I wanted it to, rather than actually discussing the OP itself.

It's a shame that you feel that way, but indicative of why perhaps you think the forum is such in a bad shape since you're apparently mistaking my disagreement with what you said with you personally.

And I must say I'm surprised that you think I haven't been discussing what the OP addressed.

Good luck with your thread



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
According to Malcram, it is only a problem when skeptics make such comments. When believers do the same, he considers it neither disruptive nor does he think it contributes to the supposed toxic atmosphere...


You know Rex, you don't have to speak for me. You don't do a very good job of it as you continually misrepresent me. Why don't you just ask me and I can tell you what I actually think on those issues, as I did with Nic above? Perhaps it's because you prefer the more convenient misrepresentation than the truth.


And of course, he continues to mischaracterize the purpose of this forum


I do? Can you explain how I am doing this?

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
A member who would write such things is a fool, and may be contravening the forums rules regarding civility and respect, but they do not stand in opposition to the very premise and purpose of the forum. That's the difference and it is crucial.
The primary purpose of the forum (or any other forums) is discussion about a specific subject, so making disruptive and off-topic posts is useless, regardless of the "side" of the poster, "unbeliever", "sceptic" or "believer", and all should be treated in the same way.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Malcram
A member who would write such things is a fool, and may be contravening the forums rules regarding civility and respect, but they do not stand in opposition to the very premise and purpose of the forum. That's the difference and it is crucial.


The primary purpose of the forum (or any other forums) is discussion about a specific subject, so making disruptive and off-topic posts is useless, regardless of the "side" of the poster, "unbeliever", "sceptic" or "believer", and all should be treated in the same way.


I just said that I personally would treat whoever wrote such a thing, of whichever camp, in the same way. Didn't you read that?

But I also said that the forum has a purpose as given in it's mission statement above - which includes references to "AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of supporting the examination of the "extraterrestrial phenomenon" - and that those who are here to derisively oppose that purpose and state that it is worthless and futile and those who entertain it are fools because ETs categorically don't exist, are in direct opposition to the forums purpose. Such people are not here to 'discuss'.

As has already been clarified by Admin:


"People who espouse such bollocks are not here to discuss and therefore will not be tolerated period."


I think we're on the same page.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I start to feel that you're just upset that the other side seems to carry a bigger stick. Your posts start to sound like you're on a fishing trip.

BTW: the ultimate goal of ATS is to deny ignorance. Good luck


Ciao.


[edit on 26-10-2009 by Nichiren]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I just said that I personally would treat whoever wrote such a thing, of whichever camp, in the same way. Didn't you read that?
Yes, I read it, and I also read "but they do not stand in opposition to the very premise and purpose of the forum", so I thought it was a good idea to try to show that first of all, the idea (as far as I understand it) of this forum is to discuss a subject, and so posts that do not help the discussion and disrupt it should be avoided and their makers punished by that.

I guess I would be happier if you hadn't included that "but", it looks like something that could be used as a possible excuse for posts from the "believers" side that may be disrupting or abusive, just that.

I like explicit statements, even if my own statements sometimes lack clarity.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Malcram
I just said that I personally would treat whoever wrote such a thing, of whichever camp, in the same way. Didn't you read that?


Yes, I read it, and I also read "but they do not stand in opposition to the very premise and purpose of the forum", so I thought it was a good idea to try to show that first of all, the idea (as far as I understand it) of this forum is to discuss a subject, and so posts that do not help the discussion and disrupt it should be avoided and their makers punished by that.

I guess I would be happier if you hadn't included that "but", it looks like something that could be used as a possible excuse for posts from the "believers" side that may be disrupting or abusive, just that.

I like explicit statements, even if my own statements sometimes lack clarity.



I already said clearly that disruptive or abusive posts should be treated the same way regardless of who posts them. So we can move on from that point.

The "but" is with regard to the purpose of this forum, which is a separate issue and is part of the topic of this thread

This forum does have a purpose, which is a bit more specific than the broad "discussion" you refer to. I personally think that this purpose has been forgotten and eroded to a significant degree in recent years and it has mutated into something else, but that's another discussion.

That purpose - at least as claimed - is "the discussion of historic and contemporary events related to extraterrestrial encounters, UFO sightings, and speculation about related subjects" and includes "AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of supporting the examination of the "extraterrestrial phenomenon""

So, A) The purpose of this forum is the discussion of "ET encounters and UFOs" etc. and "supporting the examination of the "extraterrestrial phenomenon".

And B) Members inclined to dismiss this concept are cautioned that they "should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of support" for this investigation.

There are those who support that purpose and those who do not. Those who do not support the purpose of this forum and actively oppose it, don't belong here, as Springer made clear.

Let's separate disruptive and disrespectful posts for a moment from those which do not adhere to the forums purpose. The following was how I described the content of a post opposed to the forum's purpose earlier. I said that such a post would make it clear that the poster had:

"made up their mind that there is nothing to investigate, because ETs don't exist and the whole investigation is futile and pointless."

That description doesn't actually refer to being disruptive or grossly rude, just being closed minded and opposed to the forum's purpose. Springer quoted this description, just given, and his response to it was:


Those type are what the "ALERT" button is for. People who espouse such bollocks are not here to discuss and therefor will not be tolerated period.


Now obviously, a 'believer' is not going to oppose or attempt to undermine the forum's purpose of "the discussion of...extraterrestrial encounters, UFO sightings...supporting the examination of the "extraterrestrial phenomenon", because they too support it (incidentally, this goes for true 'skeptics' also, who hold an agnostic position and are open mindedly supportive of investigation)

But 'denialists' may well - and often do - directly oppose the forums purpose.

So you see how there is a distinct difference here, inevitably so, because of the forum's inherent purpose?

In a sense, this thread is about a rule-break and a type of 'disruption' it's actually impossible for 'believers' to commit. Not liking this, some have tried to change the topic to rule-breaks that some believers do commit, but that's not what this thread is about. As a derailing tactic they have falsely claimed that I don't care about the 'crimes' of believers. I do, but that's not what this thread is about. Much has been done to avoid the actual topic of the OP and derail it simply because it's about a problem which 'believers' are not and can not contribute to and some resent that.


[edit on 26-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 

Yes, I understand it, it's just my nit-picking way of thinking, sorry.

PS: maybe I was lawyer in a previous incarnation.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Malcram
 

Yes, I understand it, it's just my nit-picking way of thinking, sorry.

PS: maybe I was lawyer in a previous incarnation.


LOL. Maybe we both were


Anyway, it's been fun. We have hashed and rehashed and re-rehashed enough here I think. It's time for one of my regular recovery breaks from ATS.


See you all next year sometime (unless disclousure happens in the meantime in which case I'll have to come back sooner, if only to gloat.
)



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by Malcram
 


I start to feel that you're just upset that the other side seems to carry a bigger stick. Your posts start to sound like you're on a fishing trip.

BTW: the ultimate goal of ATS is to deny ignorance. Good luck


Ciao.


[edit on 26-10-2009 by Nichiren]


And I get the impression you were only ever here to wave your 'stick' around


See you next year.


(Hmm. I wonder just how important having the last word is to you? We'll see! lol)

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
And just as mentioned in the first page, this thread has joined the ranks of the other "battles" on ATS.

This is the basic reason why this world will never be able to live in peace; because people cannot agree to disagree.

You believe one thing, I believe another, thats cool.

If course everyone will have a different intepretation of the subject and contents of a thread, and will put their views forward, but to trying to convince each other after that initial post seems pointless.

We are all grown up here and mostly stuck in our ways and beliefs, and it will probably take seeing something in person to make us change our minds.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I was merely pointing out in my post that we must ALL accept the other side of EVERY coin. I was not neccessarily aiming my comment at you otherwise I would have quoted you.

This is a good thread and should be read and understood by all members with all opinions.

If someone has to shut out others because of their opinions then their own opinion becomes pretty worthless doesn't it?

For every unconditional "believer" there is probably an unconditional "non-believer".

We need to work with both extremes to provide a podium in the middle-ground where much is possible but has no proof.




top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join