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.

 

Its official, absolute proof!!!

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Can somthing be done about misleading thread titles?
Its really annoying and gives a bad first impression to anyone visiting the site.

Somthing isn't "official" unless it is announced openly by organization/s directly related to it and while proof comes in many forms it cannot be claimed from random blogs, trolls or sacha faal.

These seem to be a small improvement from all caps titles proclaiming that you MUST!!!1 read the thread that second that I've seen floating around before but still...




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Haha when I saw your thread pop up in chat i was like "oh god not another proof thread."


I AGREE!

Personally I think the term "proof" shouldn't be allowed in a title when it is only interpretation and not actually proof. Just because a pic shows an anomaly or a video shows an anomaly it isn't proof of anything but that it's an anomaly.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Ya, they try and seperate their thread by using a big flashy misleading title, from the endless flow of threads that come and go but by doing that they just become one of them.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I hope the title didn't put people off reading the thread



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


You and I were both suckered!


The recent thread about "proof" that Obama didn't graduate from harvard..that takes the pale. Really. The small mindedness it must take to allow someone to be so illusioned by the false political dichotomy that is destroying our nation to claim "proof" in a few common gaffes concerns me about the world i live in.

Don't get me wrong, I am a staunch anti-Obama proponent. But honest is honest.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Anytime you see "ABSOLUTE OFFICIAL PROOF!!!!! MUST READ!!!!" you can pretty much guarantee that there is nothing "official" about it, and the "proof" will be debunked after about 3 responses. I tend to completely ignore those threads.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by I.C. Weiner
Anytime you see "ABSOLUTE OFFICIAL PROOF!!!!! MUST READ!!!!" you can pretty much guarantee that there is nothing "official" about it, and the "proof" will be debunked after about 3 responses. I tend to completely ignore those threads.


lol, this is a great part about spam
e-mail filters, pretty much 90%
of that stuff is filtered out.
Applying such to ATS may prove
a lil more difficult.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkofmimir
Can somthing be done about misleading thread titles?
Its really annoying and gives a bad first impression to anyone visiting the site.

Somthing isn't "official" unless it is announced openly by organization/s directly related to it and while proof comes in many forms it cannot be claimed from random blogs, trolls or sacha faal.

These seem to be a small improvement from all caps titles proclaiming that you MUST!!!1 read the thread that second that I've seen floating around before but still...
So,if I understand you right,something isnt official unless it is announced by a group or person of your liking.So Bill Clinton,the leader of the free world,says i didnt have sex with that woman.In your narrow mind,that would be official right.There is or never will be an undisputed source of information.People quote sources that they deem reliable,it is there opinion,you dont have to agree .



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by brindle
So,if I understand you right,something isnt official unless it is announced by a group or person of your liking.So Bill Clinton,the leader of the free world,says i didnt have sex with that woman.In your narrow mind,that would be official right.There is or never will be an undisputed source of information.People quote sources that they deem reliable,it is there opinion,you dont have to agree .

Since he used such a vague term as "that woman" we don't know who he was actually implying to
in his mind he coulda been speaking the truth - also I thought it was only oral - you could say thats not sex, its technically sodomy right? anything "sexual" not intended for procreation? or you could just say it was no ones business but his anyway - do you have pictures of penetration?

I believe him


but then he's not a "group" either - its all in the details

however, proof would be multiple experiments that produce the same result - as in Science
one scientist is not enough - he needs to publish the experiment so that many others can scrutinize it and recreate it as well - that would then be a group and a provable instance



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
At least the people who post these titles have reason to believe they are proving something (no matter how wrong they may be). Your thread is trolling at its finest because unlike the threads you mention, you don't believe you have "proof" of anything except your opinion. That makes your title 100% misleading and you know it yourself.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD
At least the people who post these titles have reason to believe they are proving something (no matter how wrong they may be). Your thread is trolling at its finest because unlike the threads you mention, you don't believe you have "proof" of anything except your opinion. That makes your title 100% misleading and you know it yourself.

too deep for me - but it is already being discussed
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD
At least the people who post these titles have reason to believe they are proving something (no matter how wrong they may be). Your thread is trolling at its finest because unlike the threads you mention, you don't believe you have "proof" of anything except your opinion. That makes your title 100% misleading and you know it yourself.


Hmmmm! sounds like someone else we know!



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD
At least the people who post these titles have reason to believe they are proving something (no matter how wrong they may be). Your thread is trolling at its finest because unlike the threads you mention, you don't believe you have "proof" of anything except your opinion. That makes your title 100% misleading and you know it yourself.


Hmmmm! sounds like someone else we know!


What can i say, this thread touched a nerve. Hey, i'm human!!



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProphecyPhD
 


The title is actually quite appropriate as the subject of the thread is the use of the phrases "its official" and "absolute proof." The definition given of official is correct. The "official" story, that issued by an office holder or officer, may or may not be truthful. I would certainly appreciate it if people learned the major differences between proof, evidence, interpretation and opinion.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
sensationalism promotes web traffic. web traffic pays ad revenue. ad revenue pays the bills.

sensationalism will only get worse.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
sensationalism promotes web traffic. web traffic pays ad revenue. ad revenue pays the bills.

sensationalism will only get worse.


You all know he's right.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
You forgot OMG!!!!!!!!!!WTF????????

And my personal favorite:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOOK HERE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I left that other site because of these attention grabbers. I hate seeing it here.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkofmimir
Can somthing be done about misleading thread titles?
Its really annoying and gives a bad first impression to anyone visiting the site.

Somthing isn't "official" unless it is announced openly by organization/s directly related to it and while proof comes in many forms it cannot be claimed from random blogs, trolls or sacha faal.

These seem to be a small improvement from all caps titles proclaiming that you MUST!!!1 read the thread that second that I've seen floating around before but still...


So you use a sensational misleading title to bitch
about people using sensational misleading titles?

That my friend is hypocrisy at its finest...

*Sensational titles should end*

I think you sir need to change the thread title and quit whining...
edit on 7-6-2011 by hillynilly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hillynilly

Originally posted by monkofmimir
Can somthing be done about misleading thread titles?
Its really annoying and gives a bad first impression to anyone visiting the site.

Somthing isn't "official" unless it is announced openly by organization/s directly related to it and while proof comes in many forms it cannot be claimed from random blogs, trolls or sacha faal.

These seem to be a small improvement from all caps titles proclaiming that you MUST!!!1 read the thread that second that I've seen floating around before but still...


So you use a sensational misleading title to bitch
about people using sensational misleading titles?

That my friend is hypocrisy at its finest...


i·ro·ny 1    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA –noun, plural -nies. ...

2. Literature . a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated. b. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

edit on 7-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I'm posting here as proof that I am very much annoyed. I've written threads that got minimal post and flags...
Yet some members that have read a couple of threads more then most have been kind enough to show their personal gratitude in form of aplause, ,multiple even. Where I'm very thankful of by the way


So What's all that about huh !? Must be the title...

If you want to check which ones ?... I'm not telling.


Have a nice day



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join