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.

 

Don't shoot the messenger!

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
now i don't know phage in person so i don't have an issue with him.

but my question for him is: Do you even believe in any conspiracies?

every post of his i have read he is trying to debunk them.

i just find that suspicious. if he doesn't believe any conspiracies why should he spend so much time on ATS?

anywho, care on.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyjohen
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


I think skepticism is important, but sometimes it is overkill on these forums.

For instance I can pretty much "debunk" anything by posting data that falls inline with my skeptic views. The data I provide can be reliable or unreliable, however the followers of the skepticism usually don't care. They would just take my word on it.

Where is the line between skepticism and scientific fanaticism? Scientific fact is always changing. So to believe in scientific findings 100% is very unwise.


Yes...very intelligent post here. Most people seek out information that conforms with their predefined schemas. And where there is an opinion, there is also research that will support it, whether true or false.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I feel the issue isn't the attempt at debunking a topic. It is more an issue of the way these "debunkers" present themselves. More often than not, I read threads and see a pattern.

The OP posts a topic, and another poster responds with an agreement in some factors if not all of the post and star and flags the OP. This sets off an alarm and poster three decides he must save the people of ATS from ignorance and pulls together some links and facts (sometimes not facts at all and not backed up by any source) to debunk the topic. This is fine and dandy, but as the post continues you will see snide remarks such as "I chortle at your ignorance" ect. These no do nothing but strike up a flare of ego war and it is no longer about the issue at hand but more of a battle of who's right and wrong.

I have nothing against people who try to question a subject, after all that's what this site is about. However, is it so bad to put down your ego and agree that both you and the OP both have minimal knowledge on the matter and work together on solving it instead of stating that each side is correct on what you think you know? Too many directors, not enough scientists.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by LeTan]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by lozenge
now i don't know phage in person so i don't have an issue with him.

but my question for him is: Do you even believe in any conspiracies?

every post of his i have read he is trying to debunk them.

i just find that suspicious. if he doesn't believe any conspiracies why should he spend so much time on ATS?

anywho, care on.


With your question to Phage, you are doing what some are railing against here. Don't ask individuals for their POV on a subject you select. If you have to ask someone a question, why don't you ask the individual about the thread topic? Who cares what Phage thinks about conspiracies? Conspiracies is not the thread topic. Wait until a conspiracies thread is started and if Phage chimes in then you can ask him. Same for Internos or any other considered "authority".


[edit on 4-1-2010 by The Shrike]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Yeah right!

Like the debunkers/skeptics don't take all the shots they can unload at the messengers of conspiracy theories in an attempt to shoot them down.

Often times the debunkers / skeptics present some wiki link that is supposed to be the end all answer, when it hardly applies, and they rarely attempt to engage in a discussion. When the fallacies of their claim is pointed out they disappear, only to claim victory on some other thread.

cry me a river why don'tcha.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


It would help us enjoy (or not!) your comments if you could at least include the name of the member(s) you are replying to so that we can see what they said that set you off.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


I am referring to all of the posters who think the op has a point, and that the debunkers/skeptics are any more innocent than those espousing conspiracy theories of taking their shots at the messenger.

It is pretty much give and take with good and bad on both sides.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
...Often times the debunkers / skeptics present some wiki link that is supposed to be the end all answer, when it hardly applies, and they rarely attempt to engage in a discussion...


It seems rather fashionable to denegrate anyone linking to Wikipedia. However, what most people seem to neglect to mention when attacking Wiki, is that a great volume of entries on their site are professionally written/edited by academics in a related field.

There are about 2000 core Wiki researchers who get paid for what they do, and as far as I know, the great majority of those are professionals with many possessing solid academic backgrounds.

So although, I personally try to refrain from simply quoting Wiki as a coverall for my research, I don't have any problems with members referencing it - so long as the reference is of sound academic quality, and directly relates to their specific argument.

I'm not sure why you're lambasting people for using it.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by mckyle]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle

I'm not sure why you're lambasting people for using it.


It's easier than accepting someone's blog of a UFO encounter which generates a huge amount of interest here from the blind believer community only to fizzle out to nothing more than the odd conference or book release as a good citation than it is to accept an encyclopaedia which benefits all of humanity for free and allows for open debate on it's content through it's discussion tab.

IMO

-m0r



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by mckyle

I'm not sure why you're lambasting people for using it.


It's easier than accepting someone's blog of a UFO encounter which generates a huge amount of interest here from the blind believer community only to fizzle out to nothing more than the odd conference or book release as a good citation than it is to accept an encyclopaedia which benefits all of humanity for free and allows for open debate on it's content through it's discussion tab.

IMO

-m0r


Good point!

How silly of me. I should have kept in mind things such as "MSM", "NWO", "Bilderbergs", "Roswell", etc. Because as we all know, Wiki is a just a mouthpiece for all the above.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by poet1b
...Often times the debunkers / skeptics present some wiki link that is supposed to be the end all answer, when it hardly applies, and they rarely attempt to engage in a discussion...


It seems rather fashionable to denegrate anyone linking to Wikipedia. However, what most people seem to neglect to mention when attacking Wiki, is that a great volume of entries on their site are professionally written/edited by academics in a related field.

There are about 2000 core Wiki researchers who get paid for what they do, and as far as I know, the great majority of those are professionals with many possessing solid academic backgrounds.

So although, I personally try to refrain from simply quoting Wiki as a coverall for my research, I don't have any problems with members referencing it - so long as the reference is of sound academic quality, and directly relates to their specific argument.

I'm not sure why you're lambasting people for using it.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by mckyle]


I have not only quoted Wiki material (with appropriate URL so that what I quote can be checked for accuracy) I have contributed to it. When I quote from Wiki, I expect those reading my threads or replies to do additional research for supporting or countering POVs. As the SYMS commercial states, "An educated consumer is our best customer."



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle
[snip]
Good point!

How silly of me. I should have kept in mind things such as "MSM", "NWO", "Bilderbergs", "Roswell", etc. Because as we all know, Wiki is a just a mouthpiece for all the above.


Here is an 180° look at Wikipedia: think of it as a branch of Aliens and UFOs forum! Everything goes!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
If you quote wiki, and then a reference which can be found at wiki, no problem, but without a reference behind wiki, you might as well be quoting a blog.

Just the same, I never quote a blog, unless it leads me to a credible source behind the blog, then I give the blog credit.

Just stating the facts.

Don't shoot the messenger peoples.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Now that you've opened it up and explained that fair enough. But it does happen on both sides of the fence. Sceptics and believers and everyone in between vary in their quality of writing. There are many posters here who I have gone and found working links for, working videos for and corrected their information even though it opposes my personal outlook - I'd say that if you are going to deliver a message; deliver it well.

So, in hindsight - Shoot the messenger that can't articulate themselves well until they do.

-m0r



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Yep, that seems to be a popular past time here on ATS.

If they can't swim, stay out of the water.

er whatever colloquial statement you would like to make?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I use to be on this site all the time while going to law school and after reading Phage's posts for almost 3 yrs, he has earned my respect over and over again. He is my Cordozo of the UFO topic.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join