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.
ENOUGH! Manners in the Aliens/UFO Forum and those who habitually deride, insult, and just LOVE being
page: 15share:
reply to post by EsSeeEye
Because the "Skeptics", in this case, are the ones that do NOT believe the videos to be anything but fakes. They belittle the posting members, which is against the T&Cs that everyone agrees to. Again, what's so hard about treating everyone with respect? This thread would have been wholly unnecessary if people would just behave civilly. Do you disagree that "the target of this thread" was breaking the T&C's by their actions?
And, as far as playing nicely, we should ALWAYS be treating each other with respect, even if we disagree. You don't have to go around calling someone names to say that you're disagreeing with them. It is possible, contrary to popular belief, to hold a conversation/debate without the use of derogatory comments being made towards another member. So, I guess the real question should be: Why should we even NEED to ask this of our membership?
reply to post by m0r1arty
You will have to submit a request to the upper staff on that one. Unfortunately, my participation here prevents me from changing the title. Submit a request for a review, and see what happens.
TheBorg
Because the "Skeptics", in this case, are the ones that do NOT believe the videos to be anything but fakes. They belittle the posting members, which is against the T&Cs that everyone agrees to. Again, what's so hard about treating everyone with respect? This thread would have been wholly unnecessary if people would just behave civilly. Do you disagree that "the target of this thread" was breaking the T&C's by their actions?
And, as far as playing nicely, we should ALWAYS be treating each other with respect, even if we disagree. You don't have to go around calling someone names to say that you're disagreeing with them. It is possible, contrary to popular belief, to hold a conversation/debate without the use of derogatory comments being made towards another member. So, I guess the real question should be: Why should we even NEED to ask this of our membership?
reply to post by m0r1arty
You will have to submit a request to the upper staff on that one. Unfortunately, my participation here prevents me from changing the title. Submit a request for a review, and see what happens.
TheBorg
Originally posted by TheBorg
Because the "Skeptics", in this case, are the ones that do NOT believe the videos to be anything but fakes.
By your own admission we are all 'sceptics' - yet it is not true that everyone believes these videos to be anything but fakes. Genuine sceptics, as you so aptly put, are everyone.
The fact that a certain community of like minded sceptics here require, and apply, critical thinking in their responses to such claims does not mean that they automatically believe all videos to be fakes. It's just that a genuine video of something unexplainable has yet to arise.
Originally posted by TheBorg
They belittle the posting members, which is against the T&Cs that everyone agrees to. Again, what's so hard about treating everyone with respect? This thread would have been wholly unnecessary if people would just behave civilly.
Both sides of the community, sceptics and believers, are guilty of 'belittling' others. I agree that it is not hard to remain civil. Civility starts with class and class starts with difference.
Originally posted by TheBorg
Do you disagree that "the target of this thread" was breaking the T&C's by their actions?
Do you agree that "the target of this thread" is breaking the T&Cs?
Originally posted by TheBorg
You will have to submit a request to the upper staff on that one. Unfortunately, my participation here prevents me from changing the title. Submit a request for a review, and see what happens.
I have posted this on many occasions within this thread and been replied to by admins so it has been read.
The fact it isn't changed speaks volumes of those not doing the changing.
-m0r
PS: I'd add an Yeah Boi! at the end but it might be interpreted as offensive so a note of what I would do should suffice.
reply to post by EsSeeEye
You just hate people who believe in something else, you only seem to be concerned in proving people wrong no matter how pedantic.
Someone who films a light in the Sky and wants to believe it's an ET spaceship is regarded fair game for a torrent of abuse.
Like a religious man with faith or a poor man with hope, members find solace in their dreams and beliefs in the Church of ATS.
We have the right to question peoples beliefs but no right to abuse them.
I will never ignore one member abusing another.
You just hate people who believe in something else, you only seem to be concerned in proving people wrong no matter how pedantic.
Someone who films a light in the Sky and wants to believe it's an ET spaceship is regarded fair game for a torrent of abuse.
Like a religious man with faith or a poor man with hope, members find solace in their dreams and beliefs in the Church of ATS.
We have the right to question peoples beliefs but no right to abuse them.
I will never ignore one member abusing another.
edit on 043030p://f21Saturday by Seventytwo because: Removed
Originally posted by TheBorg
reply to post by EsSeeEye
Because the "Skeptics", in this case, are the ones that do NOT believe the videos to be anything but fakes. They belittle the posting members, which is against the T&Cs that everyone agrees to. Again, what's so hard about treating everyone with respect? This thread would have been wholly unnecessary if people would just behave civilly. Do you disagree that "the target of this thread" was breaking the T&C's by their actions?
And, as far as playing nicely, we should ALWAYS be treating each other with respect, even if we disagree. You don't have to go around calling someone names to say that you're disagreeing with them. It is possible, contrary to popular belief, to hold a conversation/debate without the use of derogatory comments being made towards another member. So, I guess the real question should be: Why should we even NEED to ask this of our membership?
So how long until we see another of these threads aimed at others, rather than specifically skeptics? Skeptics are far from owning the patent on rude behavior.
And once again the "What's so hard with treating everyone with respect?" card comes out, as if skeptics are somewhere below the moral high ground that you're at. I could claim plenty of insult to remarks like that, but I don't. I'm starting to wonder if it's not about skeptics at all, just about the people complaining about skeptics.
Originally posted by Seventytwo
reply to post by EsSeeEye
You just hate people who believe in something else, you only seem to be concerned in proving people wrong no matter how pedantic.
Should I be offended? What happened to treating everyone with respect?
reply to post by EsSeeEye
Well i dont know
probably...
A lot of people seem to be getting upset around here, constant whining and moaning about the quality of ATS,
others run around with muse in arms browbeating other peoples beliefs.
ATS is the most respected stamp of approval in the WORLD for getting to the truth, there will be no hoax unseen or conspiracy given credibility without what the members do on this site.
Every single person on this board is a "skeptic" but you define yourself a greater "skeptic"
I don't need people to tell me "UFOs doesn't mean alien spacecraft"
It's quite patronising but yet you openly make it your persona.
I'm not being funny here it's just that I don't understand.
can i ask you what you actually like or what are your favourite things?
Well i dont know
probably...
A lot of people seem to be getting upset around here, constant whining and moaning about the quality of ATS,
others run around with muse in arms browbeating other peoples beliefs.
ATS is the most respected stamp of approval in the WORLD for getting to the truth, there will be no hoax unseen or conspiracy given credibility without what the members do on this site.
Every single person on this board is a "skeptic" but you define yourself a greater "skeptic"
I don't need people to tell me "UFOs doesn't mean alien spacecraft"
It's quite patronising but yet you openly make it your persona.
I'm not being funny here it's just that I don't understand.
can i ask you what you actually like or what are your favourite things?
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by Thepreye
I don't recall anyone being targeted, some posters recognised themselves from the descriptions of post types, subsequently they put themselves in the unpleasant group of their own accord and responded as such, it is a self selected group that any poster can leave simply by posting nicely, problem solved!
Perhaps you forgot that two of the threads were addressed towards skeptics? Beyond that, you have completely missed the point. The problem is not the call of for civility but how it is being handled.
What are you on about, I am a skeptic, I took no offence because I'm not rude or uncivil in the Aliens and UFO forum, so my point stands the op was aimed at uncivil skeptics not sceptics, as I'm sure you know, so the rude skeptics are a self defined group all their umbrage is effectively false.
reply to post by TheBorg
It's a game to them, see the post that compared any belief in alien visitation with a baby playing with its poo, all of their concern for fairness and all of their arguing in this thread is acting played out for fun.
Folk with the command of the language exhibited in the thread could not have made the mistake in comprehension of the OP that they are pretending to have made,
It's a game to them, see the post that compared any belief in alien visitation with a baby playing with its poo, all of their concern for fairness and all of their arguing in this thread is acting played out for fun.
Folk with the command of the language exhibited in the thread could not have made the mistake in comprehension of the OP that they are pretending to have made,
Originally posted by Thepreye
Folk with the command of the language exhibited in the thread could not have made the mistake in comprehension of the OP that they are pretending to have made,
Folk who cannot understand the labelling of a community as antagonistic within this thread do not have a basic understanding of the English language.
If a baby still plays with its poo in public when it's an adult I think you'll find they'll be jailed.
Babies learn, sadly for some it seems to stop at childhood.
-m0r
Originally posted by m0r1arty
If a baby still plays with its poo in public when it's an adult I think you'll find they'll be jailed.
Much more likely they'd be fined or if necessary hospitalised, but let's be honest it was a crap comparison anyway, as I've said before many physics PHD holders believe in the alien visitation hypothesis indicating that lack of intelligence or ignorance of physics has nothing to do with belief in alien visitation.
Originally posted by Thepreye
... as I've said before many physics PHD holders believe in the alien visitation hypothesis indicating that lack of intelligence or ignorance of physics has nothing to do with belief in alien visitation.
I've never, and I doubt any proper 'sceptic' would, that a belief isn't a bad thing to have.
Propagating stories or ideas that have no evidence to back them up is a dangerous thing though.
Ask any of your PhD holders if they got their certificate without backing up whatever claims they made in their aims.
Evidence, even incorrect evidence, has far more worth than anyone from any side of the belief system just dismissing things without backing it up.
I've seen sceptics and believers state that "I've seen a thread somewhere on that - but I'm busy and will link to it later" who never reappear in that thread.
I've seen sceptics and believers alike state "Fake!" and not back up their assertations.
The problem is that it takes time and effort to show someone why something is what it is. When people post a video and nothing else or worth (barring the title of Debunkers - you lose this one!!! 100%!!" then why shouldn't those who have spent the time and effort showing them what it is rebuke their original and unsubstantiated claim?
-m0r
Originally posted by m0r1arty
When people post a video and nothing else or worth (barring the title of Debunkers - you lose this one!!! 100%!!" then why shouldn't those who have spent the time and effort showing them what it is rebuke their original and unsubstantiated claim?
-m0r
Well the title of the thread you propose is indicative of the hostile atmosphere the owners are trying to quell, then we ask ourselves how many of the noble skeptics have done the "work" you claim many seem to simply say it's a balloon, Occam says it's most likely to be a balloon therefore it is a balloon.
Then we get to the grist of the thread the "rebuke" surely that should be rebuttal not rebuke?? whatever as long as it is done politely and civilly there is no problem but if there is a lack of civility there is a problem for the rebuker as they have breached the norms of acceptable behaviour as dictated by the community at large on ATS and they risk a ban, for what the momentary buz of dissing someone they erroneously believe to be dumber than themselves, come on how low is that??
Originally posted by TheBorg
I find it REALLY hard to believe that this thread could have gotten this far out of control, all over a simple word.
No offense but if you find it hard to believe, then you have not been paying attention or are looking at the situation with willfully-blind eyes. It is the behavior of the staff that has made this go off the rails.
Originally posted by TheBorg
My consternation with all of this is spawning from the apparently intentional misdirection and obtuseness being expressed by some of the members in this thread.
Do you include staff and site-owners in that "intentional misdirection and obtuseness" of some members? If anything, they are the worst offenders.
Originally posted by TheBorg
I find it to be, quite frankly, exactly what this thread is encouraging everyone to avoid!
To be quite frank, that is not true at all. What the staff really wants is a Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do atmosphere; it is quite obvious from reading how staff and site-owners have been treating members, they do not think the need for civility applies to them.
Originally posted by TheBorg
I just cannot understand how a call for everyone in the A&UFO Forum to remain civil in their posting here can cause this much of a ruckus, unless those complaining are doing so just to piss off certain people.
If I may quote you again...
Originally posted by TheBorg
My consternation with all of this is spawning from the apparently intentional misdirection and obtuseness being expressed by some of the members in this thread.
You are engaging in that same behavior. Over and over, myself and many others have said the problem is not the need for civility but how it is being handled. And repeatedly, staff-members have ignored this, favoring instead to pretend to be mystified that people have a problem with being civil.
I say pretend because it is quite obvious the staff is not making any attempt to actual listen to member concerns. It is a circle-the-wagons mentality.
Originally posted by TheBorg
The request was made in an effort to curb the overtly negative responses being received in some of the threads being posted by members. Some of these members posting these videos are new to the site, and do not understand how the whole site is structured.
That is all well and fine but it could have been handled in a much better way that didn't target any particular outlook but all members. Yes, I know Springer says it means anyone who disagrees with the OP, but that falls a bit flat.
Originally posted by TheBorg
This thread is about being generally civil to people in your posting habits, regardless of WHOM you speak to.
Unless you are a staff-member addressing members, right?
And do not tell us that is not the case; this thread is proof of it.
Originally posted by TheBorg
As I've already said, we're ALL skeptics in one way or another, so the thread title applies equally to all. What's so damned hard to understand about this very SIMPLE concept?
It could have been handled a lot better; any misconceptions could have been cleared up immediately. But the staff chose not to do that. Instead, they attacked and condescended to anyone who had a concern.
What is so damned hard to understand about this very SIMPLE concept?
Originally posted by TheBorg
Be civil while posting here, and everything will be okay. Anyone can disagree with anyone they like. It's all about HOW they address said disagreement that gets them either a good discussion or a closed thread. It's as simple as that.
That is not true at all. Again, look at how the staff have treated members in this thread.
Originally posted by TheBorg
To try and obfuscate it anymore than this is to become obtuse. And that leads me to suspect that it's intentional.
The only intentional obtuseness is on the part of the staff.
edit on 13-11-2010 by DoomsdayRex because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Thepreye
Rebuke was the term I chose and I chose it due to it's sternness and disciplined meaning.
Hypothetically (and I mean hypothetically and not some twisted other meaning) were I to call you an idiot do to some unsubstantiated opinion you suggest as truth am I wrong?
According to the T&Cs I am and I accept that.
Conversely though, you making an unsubstantiated claim which asks others to suspend their belief, or worse still just believe you, is that OK?
This is the internet and there is no way of stopping the signal. Critical thinking will win and those who oppose it will fall - the end.
If there is anything that is actually worth investigating then it will be investigated fully and suppositions will be put forward as to what it could be. But when things are thrown about willy nilly and expectations of people volunteering their time and knowledge towards disproving it then we have to wonder if that time isn't wasted and the person wasting it should be told they are wasting time to balance out the effort.
I'd like to repeat - at no time did I call you an idiot. It was purely hypothetical and was to show a differing view.
I respect you and your right to expression and wish you all the joy and happiness in the world.
-m0r
Rebuke was the term I chose and I chose it due to it's sternness and disciplined meaning.
Hypothetically (and I mean hypothetically and not some twisted other meaning) were I to call you an idiot do to some unsubstantiated opinion you suggest as truth am I wrong?
According to the T&Cs I am and I accept that.
Conversely though, you making an unsubstantiated claim which asks others to suspend their belief, or worse still just believe you, is that OK?
This is the internet and there is no way of stopping the signal. Critical thinking will win and those who oppose it will fall - the end.
If there is anything that is actually worth investigating then it will be investigated fully and suppositions will be put forward as to what it could be. But when things are thrown about willy nilly and expectations of people volunteering their time and knowledge towards disproving it then we have to wonder if that time isn't wasted and the person wasting it should be told they are wasting time to balance out the effort.
I'd like to repeat - at no time did I call you an idiot. It was purely hypothetical and was to show a differing view.
I respect you and your right to expression and wish you all the joy and happiness in the world.
-m0r
Originally posted by m0r1arty
I'd like to repeat - at no time did I call you an idiot. It was purely hypothetical and was to show a differing view.
I respect you and your right to expression and wish you all the joy and happiness in the world.
-m0r
No need for the repetition I understood the initial hypothetical construct.
I also respect you and others in the thread who have taken an antagonistic approach to the OP, tbh my main gripe is obviously bright people taking the pee out of posters who may not have been as blessed with intelligence, education or experience.
There are plenty of posters on this board who post from an alternative view point who are obviously clever enough, surely they would make a more interesting opponent in an online spat, understanding this I came to the conclusion that some skeptics were just being bullies posturing to their "gang". I honestly thought at one time that ATS was being infiltrated by a bunch of public schoolboys who were allowed on ATS by a Randyesque school master, such was the poor quality of the arguments and boorish put downs.
The fact that no names were given yet still posters were recognised or recognised themselves proves that there was a problem, however it is a dead easy problem to solve, just behave nicely.
My Randyesque comparison was in no way a reference to any sexual proclivities, just his version of skepticism.
Originally posted by Thepreye
The fact that no names were given yet still posters were recognised or recognised themselves proves that there was a problem, however it is a dead easy problem to solve, just behave nicely.
I'm fairly sure that the T&Cs, or otherwise being a good egg, means that private conversations are indeed private.
So if you can stretch your imagination towards those who apparently, to you at least, seem to identify themselves with those being targeted with no public evidence then maybe you'll see why those people are taking a stance now it's been made public.
All I'm asking for here is for the thread title to be changed (which I think is a fair thing to ask and the fact that it's not speak much more about agendas) and for thread starts to conform to basic research models when posting.
Am I asking too much?
-m0r
Originally posted by Thepreye
I came to the conclusion that some skeptics were just being bullies posturing to their "gang".
The sceptics are no more a 'gang' (as you put it) than the 'true believers'. To be a 'gang' would suggest some amount of coordination. This simply does not happen but what you do see is sceptics using the same principles of critical thinking and empirically based arguments. If one sceptic posts in a thread, it does not disqualify the others from posting. There are no sceptic gangs!
IRM
Originally posted by m0r1arty
]
I'm fairly sure that the T&Cs, or otherwise being a good egg, means that private conversations are indeed private.
What is meant by the above?
As I would never argue in favour of anything that could not be substantiated I haven't ever been "attacked" by a pseudo-skeptic so there is no personal grudge on my behalf and as an unbiased observer the actual problem the OP was addressing did to me seem to be caused by skeptics attacking believers with belittling comments.
As has been explained by mods, owners or posters who read the thread ATS has a bias in favour of fostering a fertile and friendly atmosphere for the discussion of UFOs and related issues, this isn't a site skeptical of UFOs, having said that there is no objection to skeptics debunking anything so long as they do it without bullying or scaring off potential posters with their barbs.
Remember any attack on any other poster could be legally actionable, the law gives high premium to a persons honour and good standing so the slightest slight can be dealt with very harshly.
Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Originally posted by Thepreye
I came to the conclusion that some skeptics were just being bullies posturing to their "gang".
The sceptics are no more a 'gang' (as you put it) than the 'true believers'. To be a 'gang' would suggest some amount of coordination. This simply does not happen but what you do see is sceptics using the same principles of critical thinking and empirically based arguments. If one sceptic posts in a thread, it does not disqualify the others from posting. There are no sceptic gangs!
IRM
If you read my post again you would realise I was talking of my impressions and conclusions drawn of events, that's why I put the word gang in quotation marks.
Originally posted by Thepreye
What is meant by the above?
By above I mean your entire post.
Please be legal now as we have finds and time at our end!
-m0r
Originally posted by m0r1arty
Originally posted by Thepreye
What is meant by the above?
By above I mean your entire post.
Please be legal now as we have finds and time at our end!
-m0r
Again, I genuinely don't understand what you mean by either your answer to my previous question or your second line, could you clarify it again for me, thanks for your trouble and time.