reply to post by SLAYER69
ETA - everything below I still hold to, but I realised that in a very real sense there is potential for abuse of the 'disagree button' (which is NOT a
'dislike' button, as so frequently messed around with on Youtube and the like...)
How about this as a compromise - ONLY Silver/Gold - level contributers can 'disagree'.. What if their disagreement launched an optional survey window
asking their opinion on the OP, in no more than 50 words? That might help the mods to garner data on the trending opinions of quality members,
without the danger of star/flag manipulation by sock puppets.
That way, it's a perk, and when we see that a number of people have disagreed, we KNOW that their opinion is likely to be one of some general merit,
so we can read it with a contextual backdrop, knowing that a proportion of the 'cream of the crop' of ATS members find this OP disagreeable enough to
sacrifice posting rights in order to let us know.
Well, I was just throwing ideas out there.
And come on - Slayer, AggieMan, YeahRight. Are you suggesting that the circular argumentalism and cronysim witnessed in certain forums, which has
literally put several members off from posting in those forums for life, can always be countered by a well-thought-out argument? Utter nonsense.
Now in the main, I'm not one to shy away from an 'argument', and I've often spent a good deal of my valuable time (some would say wasted my valuable
time) typing out replies to counter what I consider to be tightly-managed agendas from cronyistic disinfo types.
All I'm saying is, when you know full well what to expect from a poster (suspected sock-puppet disinfo shill) and you want to make a point without
wasting your time and getting into circular arguments/ being goaded into breaching t's and c's (they're crafty), then yeah - I stand by my point. It
wouldn't even happen very often, because those types don't actually author many threads, do they?!
They're just ever-present, ready to leap all over any threads which might expose info on particular conspiracies which fall within their
PS - don't for a moment think I'm accusing any of you three of being the 'type' I mention here. I'm pointedly NOT. I respect your comments and
thoughts in general, and have often enjoyed reading your work. I'm not a crowd-pleaser though, and you'll know that some of my work is 'off-the-wall'
and deals with unprovables/ faith-based topics.
So basically I don't care twopence about scoring popularity points by retracting my thoughts or trying to pat y'all on the back for 'proving me
Love you guys though. Slayer in particular, your threads are epic...
I'll just end with a note to say that I haven't ever really subscribed to the die-hard ATS-as-cointelpro conspiracy, so please don't anyone suggest
I'm being over-sensitive to the rules. I was just agreeing with what I felt was a nice way to avoid getting embroiled in the nonsense. And then I
expanded on it a bit.
Best to all of you.
edit on 2-7-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: per ETA
edit on 2-7-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: politeness and tone - it
could have been misinterpreted! I intended no offence.