posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by downisreallyup
What you are seeing are passionate members with strong opinions and sometimes it can get messy to the point where people become personal. I dont think
there are necessarily agents as such differences are common on such a large forum on the web. Im not saying there is no possibility of disinformation
agents but then again there are many members who have personal agendas but are just members nevertheless.
I think also, there is this big thing on here to dismiss anybody who is critical of a conspiracy. I know this is a conspiracy theory website but being
a debunker is not synonymous with being a disinformation agent. Disinformation agents (if they existed) can come in many forms and mislead in many
ways. A conspiracy with a secret agenda to confuse and mislead can be just as bad as an disinformation agent trying to derail a thread. Nobody
and define exactly what a disinformation agent must be.
I guess we can agree that the objectional behavior is not "belonging to the CSS and surfing the web posting disinfo" but to make critical but
unfounded posts regardless of the motive. It is the result that causes trouble, not the motive.
I realize that in this site there is a substantial number of members who entertain ideas that are really really out there. And the result can be a
polarization where other people feel they need to bring them down to earth.
The key problem occurs when a discussion is ultimately STOPPED as a result of the overly critical behavior. To stop a discussion goes entirely against
the purpose of this site.
I have personally seen a very entertaining discussion ENDED because a couple of individuals insisted that it was stopped because they "proved" a UFO
did not land in Barstow after one of them found a traffic report online that said it was just "raining" on that day.
Come on, really? a traffic report found online that says it's raining is proof that nothing happened on that day? That thread was closed by the
moderators because two people had a problem with it. You can see how I can be suspicious of disinfo agents when I see a guy say "It was raining on
that day" and another guy say "well of course my friend you are right, since it was raining it couldn't possibly have happened".
If the discussion seems really ignorant, a member who is critical of the subject can either provide something to talk about that will enlighten the
discussion or ignore it.
But there is nothing wrong with challenging anybody making a dismissive statement with nothing to back it up.