When I joined here I was overwhelmed with the new data to which I was exposed. Every hour it seemed that there was a new case of cattle mutilation, or
a half decent ufo sighting, or a political scandal on the verge of breaking .
It was and still is a fantastic ballet of information, moving constantly , never still for long. One of the reasons I have limited my contribution
to the site in terms of thread making, is that I work during the day, and cannot afford the time to actualy create a well structured and informative
thread. I see the effort put into threads by people like Zorgon and others, and have decided that in general there is little point creating a thread
on the fly. Deeply researched peices, well sourced and thoroughly investigated are a joy to read, but I have had the displeasure before now of comming
across threads which have been started based on falsehood, have had no benifit to a researcher, and crucialy have had no actual effort (beyond finding
the keyboard under the discarded remains of a take out dinner and a packet of Cheetos) put into them. These threads are a bloody menace, a waste of
bandwidth, and the time of members who may see an interesting headline, and then be sorely dissapointed by the quality of the thread they introduce.
Because I love this site, and because I understand the value of the time of the membership, I have limited my threads by way of a simple little
mechanism I have developed for figuring out wether it is worth me posting a thread or not. It is as follows:
1. Is there already a thread in which the topic I wish to raise is being discussed, and if so would my time be better spent posting there?
If I answer yes to this , then I am bound to avoid posting a thread if I can help it, because cluttering up the boards with the same old nonsense is
just a waste of time and effort, and doesnt advance any debates on a subject one iota, save to allow people a forum in which to stomp around on
already well trodden ground.
2. Do I have the time and resources to create a thread with some meat behind its headline, rather than just announcing the subject, saying seconds
out, and watching the mayhem of debate ensue?
When I answer yes to this part of my checking system the only thing that would stop me from making a thread would be the answer to the next
3. Are there people on the site who will likely post a better thread than me on the same subject, in not very long from now?
If the answer to this is yes, then of course I will step back and allow far more talented thread writers to perform thier discipline.
These three rules ususaly prevent me from making threads that would contribute nothing to the site and I can think of only one scenario lately where I
decided to make a thread without checking this system first, and that was my thread regarding the student protests in London at the end of last year.
The issues surrounding those events are quite close to my heart, being as they are to do with freedom, the right to protest and the right to an
Other than this I tend to let the stars of ATS shine without waving my torch at them to often
They usualy offer much better threads than I could,
and those are excellent forums for debate, and I will post in them with great vigour and enthusiasm!