reply to post by locster
I have been saying this for quite some time actually.
A think-tank is something that affects policy.
You can see my comments on the post linked below.
SKL's thoughts on think-tanks
I see quite a few problems with this happening though.
1) Divisiveness among membership.
A. Too many members hate Government, period.
Their inherent mistrust of Government will not allow them to even think for themselves, meaning taking on the role of a think-tank, is going to bring
about their own self-destructive nature, to defeat themselves.
Believing falsely, that Government is always corrupt, they see even trying to do Government type things, from think-tanks, to policy decisions, as
becoming that which they hate, not that I agree with that semblance.
But those members are an albatross to some extent.
While a think-tank definitely has to have disagreeing stances, to work, because of the differences of opinions being a part of the driving force, each
member has their own unique stances, and not all know about policy.
Instead of speaking on a topic, they often disagree, and attack each other.
B. Pettiness among members through divisive nature, political stances.
Too many members believe the left-wing
is better, or the opposing side is up to no-good, often both sides are just as
stupid through rhetoric, not the individual members of ATS, but the political partisan nonsense, the divisive nature of politics itself through a
two-party system, designed to divide and conquer completely.
If we cannot agree to follow the terms and conditions of the website, how can we expect to get something of this magnitude off the ground to begin
Do we need Moderators?
If this was Utopia we would not but that is a false dream to begin with.
People are people and react, often violently, and or divisively when their opinions are attacked, hence the necessity of Moderators and a semblance of
order, through this sites terms and conditions that not every member realizes they agreed to by signing the proverbial line to gain membership.
2) ATS is privately owned by ATS LLC.
A. While the website is generated by member contributed content, it is ours only as much as we cooperate with the Administration, based upon courtesy,
compliance, and compromise towards better attitudes and information.
Far too often do I see people bickering about petty issues and snide commentary.
If this is something Administration, and through them, the Moderators have to constantly, and consistently have to deal with, how could they even
consider beginning the high-minded idealistic nature of a think-tank?
Would you or anyone else for that matter back us up if you were Administration of this website, if people acted like little children, instead of
remembering everyone has their own opinions and or belief systems?
I would not.
And I would not blame ATS Administration one iota for not backing us.
Frankly, I love the idea of a think-tank, but I grow tired and weary of stupidity.
Notice I did not say ignorance.
Ignorance is not knowing you do not know.
Stupidity however is knowing and not cooperating due to not acting better.
Hence ATS and the motto of Deny Ignorance
Deny not knowing so you can know more through sharing information.
B. Due to ATS being privately owned a think-tank would have to be supported, financially, and through that, events, books, literature might be used
towards recognition of the website, offline, seeing as this website is only brought to people's attention if and when people are seeking out
knowledge about U.F.O.'s
and or military.
You name the topic.
But they only find this out due to advertising paid for by ATS Administration.
Due to this and any agenda ATS membership might take on, any decision made, any policy pushed towards anyone, could potentially be seen as threatening
to Government, a country, and or person with an agenda.
Unfortunately, due to that, and as well, this being an international website, it might be seen as a threat, through Interpol
, something I am
sure ATS would not like happening, due to the nature of the Internet and with all the Presidential Administration issues with the online
I love the idea completely of using legally and non-violent means to change.
I do see ATS has the intelligence, the people who see this as a good idea, and as well the underpinnings of a think-tank, but the over all membership
needs to shift in their minds that we are for a positive change.
Otherwise, while I am speaking my opinion, I would not believe ATS Administration would see this as viable, but that's because of my knowledge not of
anyone's personal behind the scenes perspectives, but due to my knowledge of Government, American and World Government.
I do see ATS to some extent as a think-tank because of the diverse nature of membership.
But after a while, talk, without acting, through intent, is nothing more than words.
On a computer screen.
3) Recruiting as an issue.
A. The Government hates dissent, with a passion, look to the M.I.A.C. Report
as a prime example, lying to keep a North American Union
happening, using the laws against militia's, as a prime example of why recruiting is not only not allowed on ATS, but why Government might see ATS
becoming a think-tank as a direct threat.
Through that the use of the law considering sedition might be enforced.
Whether I agree with that or not is irrelevant, I see that being a law being used.
Due to that and a threat against National Security
, again whether I agree or not is irrelevant, it would be something used to shut down ATS.
People so often decry Agent Provocateurs
, Government Agents
, and Spies
on ATS, blaming each other, again towards the
divisiveness, but it really does happen, people from different Government agencies, both foreign and or domestic, do visit ATS continually.
Remember, America was originated around Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, both were susceptible from injury and betrayal from within by the very own
The same goes for each country, around the world, America, Russia, Venezuela, and as well the same can be said for ATS, betrayal from within.
We as a conspiracy theory
website cannot even agree on one conspiracy together.
Who shot J.F.K., was it Lee Harvey Oswald, or a Secret Pact of Government officials?
Was Oswald what we now call a conspiracy theorist
or a subversive element?
What exactly are the differences between those two elements?
Does the Government differentiate between the two or do they see them the same?
Was Timothy McVeigh acting alone or was he a patsy through collusion of Government?
Was it an act of homegrown terrorism
or like Arlington Road
a False-Flag Operation
What happened the Terry Nichols?
Did 9/11 happen the way we were told or was it Bush and Cheney robbing us through a covert intelligence fundraiser, in collusion with Osama bin
15 out of 19 "terrorists"
were Saudi Arabian's?
How come a Commission
was formed instead of allowing the F.B.I. and C.I.A. to do their jobs?
Do you see my point?
Until we can come to some semblance of agreement and a consensus of information, we are actually our own worst enemies, through disagreement, to
dissent, to downright ignorance of self-preservation of our beloved website.
[edit on 21-8-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]