It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Which leads me to ask, are you or are you not a member of an organized and funded group who's mission is to dispel and debunk every piece of information, both ancient and present, that would allow people to make an informed personal analysis?
Originally posted by stereologist
Are you a sock puppet? How much income do you derive from stating and restating glaring obvious lies and misrepresentations. Why do you persist in spreading misinformation about 2012? Is your purpose to make believers in 2012 look foolish by your childish antics?
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777
Let's suppose that this is a legitimate question. In that case I simply refuse to answer. I have a simple reason for that. If I answer the question then people will know whether or not I am affiliated. If I do not answer, then the conspiracy vibes will jar everyone.
There are also adults who are otherwise reasonable, but who have a belief in, or fear of the “2012 doomsday”.
Now, in a battle of logic between equally matched adults, the arguments on both sides may be nuanced, i.e., the difference between the scientific usage of the word “theory” and the every-day usage. These nuanced arguments are going to be lost on kids, they’re not going to “get it”. They are being sold the “2012 doomsday” hoax as an absolute fact. We need to cast aside our normal, nuanced, scientific language in favor of more direct language.
Speak and write boldly on the topic. Too often writers used to speaking to or writing for a scientifically minded audience, and they will use terminology that transmits the message “Uncertainty” to a lay audience. Instead of saying things like “The evidence suggests…” say “We know…” or “We can show…” or even “We can prove…” Now, I realize that the “P-word” is not acceptable in scientific discourse, but this just proves my point:
The overwhelming evidence provides what the lay audience considers (or should consider) “proof”.
Turns out, you had heard of all but one.
I'm not a sock puppet and I've never received income for posting what you call misinformation.
Maybe the mods need to check your IP address to see if you are a sock puppet. That might be interesting.
Frankly after all of the addled posts you've been making lately with flat out lies about the Washington Post do you actually expect anyone to believe your assertion that you are not receiving incoming from these wild tales of yours? Or are you waiting for a paycheck promised you?
That's the most convoluted and evasive answer to a simple question I've ever seen. Can we take that as a yes?
Buck up and apply basic reading skills. I say let the conspiracy vibes rattle you.
It is a violation of ATS rules to solicit private information from members. You've been warned.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I see the normal debunkers are here. Most of them anyways. Still missing a few.
If you want to camp out in ONE forum 24/7 and fill EVERY thread, EVERY page and EVERY post with petty, contentious arguments, officious declarations based on nothing and flat-out lies, then repeat the same thing every day for months on end, THAT'S when I object.
"Hey if you don't believe it, then that's fine. Go somewhere else now because there's nothing for you here" and constantly they ignore the advice and continue to say the same thing.