Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The 2012 Forum Has Become a Snake Pit

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CUin2013?
I have had supposed conversations like this before. I just ignore them after a while.

Probably what I am going to do now. Good luck.


Ignoring is...well....ignorant.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by CUin2013?
I have had supposed conversations like this before. I just ignore them after a while.

Probably what I am going to do now. Good luck.


Ignoring is...well....ignorant.


Much better than trying to have a conversation with a telephone pole.

Have you tried to taste the ice on a metal one lately?
edit on 2/28/2011 by CUin2013? because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


The question is "What if I am wrong?" That's a fair question, but wrong abut what?

Am I wrong about the impossibility of an unknown planet that enters the orbits of the known planets and wreaks havoc? No. Several lines of evidence make it very clear that this is not possible.
Am I wrong to state that there has not been an increase in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions? No. The evidence suggests that nothing unusual is happening.
Am I wrong that there are no predictions associated with the end of the long count calendar? No. Had there actually been any they would have been shoved into my face long ago.

Am I ever wrong? Of course. In fact, look over the threads. I apologize for errors even if the error is not clear. I like to point out when I learn something new. Lots of people that have listed themselves as friends here at ATS have shown me new information and new ways to view the available evidence. Rarely, people that claim me as a respected foe show me new information. The reason it is rare is that foes rarely if ever actually try to understand the wacko claims they make.


Why are you trying to save people from their own beliefs?

Are you admitting that this is nothing more than belief and not based on reality? Are you admitting that this is nothing more than fear mongering on those susceptible to these sorts of unfounded claims?


Why is self-sufficiency and being prepared for anything such a bad thing?

Of course not. On the other hand to have people quitting their jobs or contemplating suicide or spending their money thinking there is no future is wrong. To have people thinking that the likes of Hancock or Sitchin is valid is wrong. To teach people hoaxes is wrong.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
HAHA! Another debate with the Sterio.... LOL. Don't you people know by now that if you want to debate with him then you better be bringing Facts and Evidence to the table. Just saying. His questioning your posts should be looked upon as a challenge, to yourself.

Get the facts, then post, otherwise you are just Trolling yourself. lol

Just because you can make a thread doesn't make you right. prove it.

I think that 2012 will come and go. TPTB on the other hand may make it more difficult.

Comet Elenin is fun to speculate about considering we have no real facts on it either. No actual size of it, No confirmed trajectory. As a matter of fact, comet Elenin is ALL speculation.

Tyche is another matter. It's only speculation that it is even there! Everything about it is speculation, it's size, trajectory, it's existence. It's all just guessing.

Pole shift. Big deal, it happens every year. Yah maybe it has been speeding up every year, but maybe it'll start slowing down again in a few years.

Future map. This is another good one. I could make up a future map and in 100 years people would be thinking I had inside knowledge or something. It's just speculation as well.


I think we all better be a little more worried about our governments, and big corporations. That's the real deal. If you need to be prepared, then buy food and a gun. You can not go wrong. buy lots of food that you would eat anyways. Food will always go UP in price. So you just save money in the long run. A gun will protect you and feed you. Silver and gold purchasing is gambling, and the prices are always relevant. buying gold and silver is a risk and should be treated as such.

So speculate away your day. Until you have real proof, your wasting your time, and ours.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

[
The problem is - anyone new coming to these threads looking for information is inundated with misleading drivel from these people that just want to argue.

There are people waking up to the possibilities all the time and want information on how to protect their families.

Why should they have to deal with all the distractions in these threads when all they want to do is get information?


Well in all honesty I'm making up my own mind, and by understanding different perspectives and what ATSer's bring to the table will allow me to come to my own conclusion....

And thus far I have to say, in my opinion, there is really no solid or credible information that makes me inclined to think something will happen in 2012..... it will be another day... but hey, thats simply my opinion.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by downunder666
Well in all honesty I'm making up my own mind, and by understanding different perspectives and what ATSer's bring to the table will allow me to come to my own conclusion....

And thus far I have to say, in my opinion, there is really no solid or credible information that makes me inclined to think something will happen in 2012..... it will be another day... but hey, thats simply my opinion.

That's fine and I respect your opinion.

But my original point was that Lucus and his very extensive research was run out of here, so that's a different perspective you won't have.

And if it really lacked substance or credibility, isn't that something you can decide on your own?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

The question is "What if I am wrong?" That's a fair question, but wrong abut what?

Am I wrong about the impossibility of an unknown planet that enters the orbits of the known planets and wreaks havoc? No. Several lines of evidence make it very clear that this is not possible.

So you're saying you can prove a negative?

If we are part of a binary or multiple star system -- the majority of stars -- it wouldn't be impossible at all. The Binary Institute has a lot of credible evidence that supports this theory. Do I really need to remind you how theories like Copernicus' have been accepted?


Originally posted by stereologist
To have people thinking that the likes of Hancock or Sitchin is valid is wrong. To teach people hoaxes is wrong.

Well first of all, there's more than Sitchin and Hancock who believe this is possible. But you've found a way to dismiss ALL of them by labeling everything hoaxes and frauds.

And to categorically dismiss one of the few people in the world who could even translate the Sumerian tablets indicates that this is more of an emotional issue than intellectual argument.

When someone can do more than point me to a SitchinIsWrong website -- as in translate Sumerian themselves and write as many books as Sitchin did -- THAT'S when I'll decide whether Sitchin is wrong or not. Until then, what he's written seems very credible and even explains a number of gaps and inconsistencies in both creation and evolution.

I even disagree that there hasn't been an increase in large earthquakes, not to mention the fact that the Richter Scale was rejiggered to shave an entire point off the scale. Earthquakes that were formerly reported as 7.0 are now 6.0.

edit on 2/28/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
And to categorically dismiss one of the few people in the world who could even translate the Sumerian tablets indicates that this is more of an emotional issue than intellectual argument.


You are starting to get somewhere with that
Just realize that it goes both ways.

Many are not concerned with learning, exploration, or science. Most humans come to the "yea or nay" conclusion on something before they have even heard the topic.

This should be made very clear when statements like "it is the onus of the claimant to provide evidence" are made. Do realize this comes from both the "yea" and "nay" sides on a given topic. Such attitudes are obviously more concerned with the argument aspect of "winning" than learning about the actual topic at hand beyond the pre-programmed response. If it fits into ones world view, it is "accepted" with no personal exploration and as a programmed response. If it does not fit into ones world view, it is "not accepted" with no personal exploration and as a programmed response. It becomes a "court" where the semantics and specific words involved are the main focus, instead of the concepts behind them. Neither side is interested in actually learning, and feels that their "side" holds the key to the "absolute truth." the "believer" and "skeptic" polarizations could learn so much from one another, but the interest is certainly more focused on competition and being "number one!" both could learn a significant amount from actually practicing and learning about science, instead of being "google crusaders" with absolute unyielding faith that what they know is 100% accurate and true.

There are no victims here though, truly. As they say, it takes two to tango. You blame people like stereologist for derailing threads, but in reality (beyond your own pre-programmed response), no derailment would happen if no one were to respond. Think about it, dont just re-act to what i am saying. All parties involved are partially responsible.

It is up to the individual to do the personal exploration on any given topic. This would be better facilitated if either side was actually educated on the scientific method (and just as importantly, its inherent flaws), but most are more concerned with proving (or justifying, if you will) their pre-programmed response to "X" than actual learning.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I see the normal debunkers are here. Most of them anyways. Still missing a few.


You counted me, right?

If you don't acknowledge me I wont get my paycheck form my alphabet group employer.



Just so you can get payed . . . sure.


Cluckerspud is a disinfo agent!





But really. I have my list (not physical. In my mind) of people who I have noticed having a trend in decrying anything posted. They know who they are. lol



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I agree with OP.
Its the same with Reptiles. As soon as someone makes a serious thread backed up by hard evidence, all the naysayers and poo pooers arrive and diss it to the max.
They turn an interesting and thought provocative thread into pure drivel.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptilePete
 


It actually happens in all forums. 9/11, 2012, Reptilians, UFO's, Religion, Politics.


Something people can't understand . . . if you do not believe in it, why waste time posting? Just move on. I do not believe in Reptilians. But to each his own. I won't open a thread about them. Therefore, I will never derail a thread.

The problem is that some people get their rocks off by trolling (actively causing disruption).


Simple solution . . . if you do not agree with the subject matter, do not open the thread.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Simple solution . . . if you do not agree with the subject matter, do not open the thread.


I could not disagree more with that sentiment. Sometimes, as limited beings, we are actually wrong about things. There is no way one would be shown that if everyone were to always agree with them. I also might post in a thread that i disagree with simply to learn more about the subject, and the people involved in discussing it. I might learn something by talking with people i disagree with, and the people i disagree with might learn something by talking with me.

However, i agree to the extent that when someone disagrees and then just says "burden of proof is on you buddy!" that it is certainly more in the vein of attempting to "win" in some asinine competition, "convert the heathens," or just outright trolling.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 

You make very good points and I can't disagree with anything you say.

EXCEPT when one side treats a particular issue like a "battle" or crusade and spends all their time attempting to prove a negative and disprove what can't be disproven. Relying on derision, ridicule and blanket dismissals is not only intellectually dishonest, this is a topic that's way too important and fraught with potentially disastrous consequences for a forum to be dominated by what's essentially one professional poster who weighs in on every thread.

This is exactly what happened (and still happens) on the 9/11 forum. If there's one thing I learned from 9/11, it's to never trust anything the government says. EVER. So you'll have to excuse me if my only real reaction is to take NASA's assurances that "your government would never lie or withhold information" with a grain of salt. Evidence of seed vaults built into the sides of mountains and massive underground bunkers (cities) is just too prevalent.

This skepticism includes anyone who's just a bit too obsessed with promoting an official story -- from Pearl Harbor to JFK to Gulf of Tonkin to 9/11 -- official lies that many Americans have had enough of.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece


And if it really lacked substance or credibility, isn't that something you can decide on your own?


Absolutely, by no means am I concrete on any of my thoughts at present.............
I simply sway one way more than the other based on MY findings.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


The problem is that no one can take the hit to their pride and admit they are wrong.


And like the poster above me said. Some people are on a personal crusade.

That is why I said what I did.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


The only way for the thread to actually get derailed is to respond to such posters. There are some skeptics who truly know what they are talking about, but its incredibly clear who those people are. There are some believers who truly know what they are talking about, and its also incredibly clear who those people are. The rest make little more than posts without any sort of real substance, usually with the intent of getting the other side to respond in order to get the thread away from actually discussing anything of substance.

Why do some feel there is a need to respond to such posters?

By doing that, it brings the thread off course. Instead of using the posts to simply ignore such people and continue talking about the topic, the posts are instead focused on "debunking the debunker" and that is how topics get derailed and the initial concepts buried. Fighting fire with fire, in this case, has pretty consistent results in that the thread goes to.. well, #e That is the very intent of such people. They are not interested in actual science, information, data, or discussion. They are "in it to win it," and the intent is to "win" the argument regardless of "truth." they are google crusaders and their only desire is to prove their own limited view of the universe "right." Those who respond in a similarly off-topic manner are being played like puppets.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


I am well aware of the "crusade" as i believe i was the first one to bring up such a notion in this thread, several pages back. It was a wall of text though, so the percentage of people who actually will read it probably drops by several orders of magnitude.
the same will undoubtedly apply to this post as well. it is an intentional gating mechanism to avoid discussions with google crusaders


What do you feel is accomplished by responding to such people?

Their minds will be changed on nothing, until their "purveyors of truth" tell them what their reality is. Words used to convince such people (either "yea" or "nay") are wasted, however, they play right into the plan (intentional or not) to derail the thread in the first place (with the intent of the initial de-railer to fortify their own limited bias, by discrediting others). If everyone were to continue discussing as if no one had ever posted such nonsense in the first place, the thread would not get derailed. Those who respond are equally responsible for bringing the thread off track, especially if they are aware that the people they are speaking to will never, ever be convinced of anything.

 


Lets use the 2012 forum for an example of a "nay." It is obvious that some have some sort of affinity for a topic, as it will tend to be the only topic they post in.

Where some people post it is with the seemingly clear intent to derail. at the very least, it is blatant that they have zero interest in actually discussing the topic, and is much more interests in "winning by discrediting." the original posters, and others involved, start replying because they feel the need to "convert the heathen." or at least, make sure that no one is converted by "nay" side in the first place. The thread itself turns into some asinine "debate" on something which none of the participants actually know with certainty anyway. Instead of posting perceptions, data, and interpretations of data, the discussion moves into outright bickering and then eventually dwindles when those involved get bored and move on. "mission accomplished!" Nothing of substance was related by either side. This turns the thread into a useless waste of bandwidth, with both "yea" and "nay" sides thinking they were successful in "defending" their viewpoint.

Most people that are reading have already made up their mind on everything, as they have pre-programmed themselves to re-act and decide before a scenario is given. The rest of the people will decide for themselves, no matter what is said by any number of individuals on some message board.

The first group has already decided on everything they will encounter in life. There is no convincing them of anything, and any words used to do so are wasted. Those words are, however, extremely efficient in getting the thread and topic completely away from any discussion with substance, and into bickering. The intent is to confirm the already empty bias by "winning" in an argument against the other side. This is used to justify the illogical position of knowing "absolute truth." There is zero discussion to be had with such people, in my experience. It is best to "agree to disagree" and simply move on.

The second group will decide after exploring every aspect of it through several different avenues. There is no individual convincing them of anything, and any words used to do so are wasted. These are the people who can actually have discussions about things, and realize our inherent limitations. They are also much more likely to actually know what they are talking about. If any type of discussion will be effective in relaying concepts and perspectives of substance, it would surely be this. This group focuses in making theories based on all available information, but realizes the inherent difficulty in jumping into either the "yea" or "nay" side in totality due to lack of omniscience.

Either way, peoples minds will not be changed because of bickering between the "yea" and "nay" sides, ever. It would seem that if someone truly wanted to get information out, that they felt was important, they would just let the people who only want to "win" do their "thing," as they have a right to say it. and then would just continue to post as if they had never posted anything anyway. Because really, coming into a thread and saying "wheres the evidence," or a derivative, are posts without any substance and should be treated as if it was either a blank, empty post or if it had never been posted in the first place. They might as well come into a thread about the end of the world and state "Claussen pickles are the best." Though, such a point is obviously not up for debate, as its clear they are the best!


So, instead of turning into a personal crusade (from both sides) why dont people just focus on the topic? It would seem the most logical way to go about it is to not allow others to intentionally start the derailment process by not continuing it ourselves, and only focus on posters that are actually bringing something to the table (from both sides). By treating discussions of topics as arguments/debates, the substance of the topic and concept are quickly buried. Instead of attempting to prove one side "right" and the other "wrong," it would be significantly more productive to just focus energy and time on those that are more interested in the exploration of a given topic. When a true scientist sees a pattern, they aim to explore it through countless different methods. For those that have programmed themselves, the "yea" side will say it proves some concept they already had, and if any effort is put into exploration at all (not too likely), it will be done with the notion of proving what was already known as "right." the "nay" side will simply say the pattern means nothing, and if any effort is put into exploration at all (not too likely), it will be done with the notion of proving what was already known as "right."

Leaving the possibility of the "wrong" side being "right," even if only partially, would seem to be the only productive way of going about anything... Even if it does ruin ones illusion of being omniscient.
edit on 28-2-2011 by sinohptik because: singling out of poster was unwarranted and clarity



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



So you're saying you can prove a negative?

If we are part of a binary or multiple star system -- the majority of stars -- it wouldn't be impossible at all. The Binary Institute has a lot of credible evidence that supports this theory. Do I really need to remind you how theories like Copernicus' have been accepted?

More pathetic efforts at misrepresenting my position.

Proving that an unknown planet cannot exist that enters the orbit of the known planets is not proving a negative.

Being part of a binary system does not prove the existence of an unknown planet.


And to categorically dismiss one of the few people in the world who could even translate the Sumerian tablets indicates that this is more of an emotional issue than intellectual argument.

You can't be referring to Sitchin since he can't translate Sumerian he only pretends to be able to do that.

Then you fall back on the nutty idea that if it is in print there must be truth to it. Tell that to Bernie Madoff's customers. LOL!


Until then, what he's written seems very credible and even explains a number of gaps and inconsistencies in both creation and evolution.

Sitchin's hoaxes are more ridiculous the more you talk about it.


I even disagree that there hasn't been an increase in large earthquakes, not to mention the fact that the Richter Scale was rejiggered to shave an entire point off the scale. Earthquakes that were formerly reported as 7.0 are now 6.0.

No surprise that you don't understand what was done. What you are stating is false. You need to get a handle on what was done before making embarrassing statements.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 



Where stereo posts it is with the seemingly clear intent to derail. at the very least, it is blatant that stereo has zero interest in actually discussing the topic, and is much more interests in "winning by discrediting." the original posters, and others involved, start replying because they feel the need to "convert the heathen." or at least, make sure that no one is converted by stereo in the first place.


Would you like some cheese with that whine? Why don't you join in on the threads or do you plan on playing commentator? If you have some evidence to support some of the outrageous statements made in 2012 threads then it would be good to get that information out there.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Hey GoldenFleece,

Its about time someone stated out loud what many of us are thinking. I don't post in any other threads, other then my own, here in the 2012 forum because of the very behavior you've described. I won't name the person, but this guy is a world class jerk and it amazes me ATS lectures the entire website on behavior, yet this one person is allowed to call people, stupid, idiots, liars, asses, or whatever the hell else pops into his Google Professor mind. This forum used to be fun, now it SUCKS so bad it just aint worth it… and its ALL ATS' FAULT... The moderators in this forum suck, they defile the standards ATS says it demands, and makes ATS' call for civility laughable. Until this forum actually lives up to the standards we are told ATS stands for, I'll simply stay away, save for one thread. Seriously, check my profile… outside of my thread and this one post… I simply refuse to deal with all the negative attitude that one person displays every single day towards everyone and all things 2012, who just happens to be in this very thread as well, and being a world class jerk no less... while the moderators delete everyone else’s posts who are sick of this one persons behavior. It truly is sad what these moderators have allowed this 2012 forum to become.

--Charles Marcello

CC: SkepticOverlord
edit on 28-2-2011 by littlebunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You do realize you are proving the point of this thread . . . don't you?






top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join