The ATS Regent Debate Thread pt.1

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Onward.

P.S. - smooth move with the post edit. Pity I quoted the relevant section before that, and edited out all the repetitive parts for brevity. Nice try. No cigar.

tell me again about that "honesty" and "integrity".



The part of my post you quoted is still there for all to see...as well as the rest of the "repetitive post" that you apparently skipped over.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, back on topic.

I will let you or Druid choose the next question.


NOW,I bid you good night, friend.

Good luck tomorrow.
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

The part of my post you quoted is still there for all to see...as well as the rest of the "repetitive post" that you apparently skipped over.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, back on topic.

I will let you or Druid choose the next question.


Nice redirect... but no, I meant this edited post.

I've still got both versions if you ever want the original back... not my fault that the same quoted text was repeated in both and confused you.


I'll give you a hint - the edited one started out "ladies and Gentlemen... " then delved into a bit of dishonesty - claiming that I "chose to attack the fact that I wanted to do more than the definition calls for". In fact I am attacking the fact that you are entirely ignoring the definition. That false claim of my objective is something I am coming to expect.

The definition is still there, though. It hasn't changed. there's still time to read it and adjust your philosophy to align with it.






edit on 2012/6/22 by nenothtu because: to quote full post - for safety's sake.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Again, the part that you quoted is up for all to see and I will happily quote it again. You just keep on laughing... But it is up on this thread, twice now.


Ladies and gentleman,my opponent chooses to attempt to attack the fact that I want to do more than what is in the definition of advocate.

I say this... Even if I were wrong.... that simply means that I will be going above and beyond the definition of advocate by doing more than just what is stated in the definition.You are free to tether yourself to just that simple definition. I plan on doing a lot more than that.

So,you keep worrying about your definition. I will be worrying about the people.

The horse is dead, friend.... Time to stop beating it.

Next question?


Again, there for all to see.


That said, you are still beating the dead horse.... Poor horse


Time to let it go and let the people decide.I will be back when you are ready to move on to the next subject.
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

We are BEYOND off topic now.

Let's get back on topic.


You are a former Mod. you are rightfully proud of that fact, and miss no opportunity to tell us about it. How is it then that you can deem this to be "off topic"?

What IS the topic, then? I was under the impression that it was "The ATS Regent Debate Thread pt.1". we are debating. We are running for ATS Regent. Just HOW is it "off topic"?

One would think that integrity goes to the very heart of the debate.

Had I not called you on it, the edit would have stood, and none but you and I would have been the wiser. Even your quote is not as I responded to it, but we can let that slide. The difference is now inconsequential, involving only an inclusion of you accusing ME of "beating dead horses" which wasn't there before.

So then, what is "off topic" about a political debate in a thread for ... political debate?.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

What IS the topic, then? I was under the impression that it was "The ATS Regent Debate Thread pt.1". we are debating. We are running for ATS Regent. Just HOW is it "off topic"?


The topic is not whether or not I edited a post.
You know better than that. But I gladly quoted the post again, for you to see. It is up twice now.



Had I not called you on it, the edit would have stood, and none but you and I would have been the wiser.


It's up on the thread TWICE now. It was there before you said anything and I quoted it again after you"called me out on it"




So then, what is "off topic" about a political debate in a thread for ... political debate?.


Again, whether or not a post was edited has WHAT to do with a political debate?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is there. and I will quote it for a THIRD time....


Ladies and gentleman,my opponent chooses to attempt to attack the fact that I want to do more than what is in the definition of advocate.

I say this... Even if I were wrong.... that simply means that I will be going above and beyond the definition of advocate by doing more than just what is stated in the definition.You are free to tether yourself to just that simple definition. I plan on doing a lot more than that.

So,you keep worrying about your definition. I will be worrying about the people.

The horse is dead, friend.... Time to stop beating it.

Next question?



Move on.
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I have a novel idea. Lets debate politics, shall we? Seeing as this IS a political debate....
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by nenothtu

What IS the topic, then? I was under the impression that it was "The ATS Regent Debate Thread pt.1". we are debating. We are running for ATS Regent. Just HOW is it "off topic"?


The topic is not whether or not I edited a post.
You know better than that.


it absolutely IS the topic. You have said it yourself - integrity is an important quality for a Regent to have, and this calls integrity into question. The topic, again, is "The ATS Regent Debate Thread pt.1". Three questions were presented to initiate the debate. had we merely answered those questions, no debate would have occurred. The object of a debate is to respond to your opponent's post. That becomes impossible and nonsensical when your opponent makes such a radical edit.

I can't believe I have to explain that to a former Mod.



But I gladly quoted the post again, for you to see. It is up twice now.


Had I not called you on it, the edit would have stood, and none but you and I would have been the wiser.


It's up on the thread TWICE now. I quoted it again after you"called me out on it"



No, it isn't up twice. I just checked. the edit is still standing, and your quote and my archive are the only places the original is stored.




So then, what is "off topic" about a political debate in a thread for ... political debate?.


Again, whether or not a post was edited has WHAT to do with a political debate?


Explained above.



www.abovetopsecret.com...


Wrong post - that's the second time you've linked to the wrong post.



I'm not hiding a single thing I said.

Move on.
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)


Not NOW, you're not!


That "quote" is pretty close to what was there to begin with. Not exact, but close enough for government work.

edit on 2012/6/22 by nenothtu because: fixed quote tags



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I have a novel idea. Lets debate politics, shall we? Seeing as this IS a political debate....
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)


We are. At the moment, we are debating the conduct of politics.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


You do not suit the title of regent if you are altering your posts to force a particular agenda...whatever that may be.

I don't think the people would want a Regent who is arrogant either...



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


In something as important and serious as this, post edits ought to be fairly minor. Quote tags, punctuation and capitalization, additional thoughts, even a different choice of words to convey a thought better I could accept. Post edits as radical as the one done, however, I personally believe would call for an entire new post of their own, leaving the old one to stand.

It doesn't quite rise to the level of invoking Executive privilege to conceal incriminating e-mails, but it's not far off in my book, and on the same road, just not as far along it.

Edit to add: I'm tired of waiting, getting droopy, and in serious need of my beauty sleep, so I'm down, and will return in a few hours.


edit on 2012/6/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by daaskapital
 


In something as important and serious as this, post edits ought to be fairly minor. Quote tags, punctuation and capitalization, additional thoughts, even a different choice of words to convey a thought better I could accept. Post edits as radical as the one done, however, I personally believe would call for an entire new post of their own, leaving the old one to stand.

It doesn't quite rise to the level of invoking Executive privilege to conceal incriminating e-mails, but it's not far off in my book, and on the same road, just not as far along it.

Edit to add: I'm tired of waiting, getting droopy, and in serious need of my beauty sleep, so I'm down, and will return in a few hours.
edit on 2012/6/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


I agree.

The fact that Gimme_Some_Truth states he is for the people and that he has nothing to hide is destroyed by his actions in which he takes.

Just another tactic used by him i suppose


First the sympathy card, and now the editing.

To the voters reading this thread. Do you really want Gimme_Some_Truth to be your representative when all he does is use sly tactics to deceive people and make out his opponents to be incapable of responding properly by drastically editing his posts?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





What IS the topic, then? I was under the impression that it was "The ATS Regent Debate Thread pt.1"


Correct, with the subject of member qualifications being the primary direction of debate.

I am impressed with the way you've handled yourself, just a simple statement, but one that the the voters should be aware of. Your caliber of character is shining through, something that I didn't see in the early stages of this campaign.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 





I view the title of Regent as a title which belongs to the people. While this goes against the direct definition of a Regent (an Individual), it is absolutely crucial that the citizens, our equals, get a say in the decisions made regarding ATS.


You made the above statement earlier in this debate, and further expounded upon it with this statement:




If i were elected as Regent, i would make sure that everyone gets a say in the decisions made, even if it means going to the polls to ask for opinions (of course if the mods allow it).


Although the membership has no say in the decisions made by management, for the sake of this debate, I'd like you to clarify your position with other options available to members. You suggest a polling tactic, but are there any other feasible ways for members to share their ideas with management?

Basically, how would you, as Regent, try to represent members on an "equal" basis, given the fact that membership is derived from a global community?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
Although the membership has no say in the decisions made by management, for the sake of this debate, I'd like you to clarify your position with other options available to members. You suggest a polling tactic, but are there any other feasible ways for members to share their ideas with management?

Basically, how would you, as Regent, try to represent members on an "equal" basis, given the fact that membership is derived from a global community?


I will be more than happy to clarify for you.

First of all, yes the members have no say, but it doesn't mean that they can't propose new ideas and changes that they would like. Of course they can!

Perhaps threads could be created asking members for their positions and opinions regarding specific features of ATS. Alternatively, U2U's could be sent out to inform the people about the thread, or to ask for their opinions directly.

The poll could be used once management has agreed to the numerous choices presented. The members could then go to a vote on said choices.

If both are unacceptable, members can contact myself directly and i will make threads regarding the situation, to see what the members think, or go to a mod to ask what they think.
edit on 22-6-2012 by daaskapital because: spelling



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


You do not suit the title of regent if you are altering your posts to force a particular agenda...whatever that may be.

I don't think the people would want a Regent who is arrogant either...



Nothing was altered and it was posted THREE times for anyone and everyone to see.


If you want to accuse me of hiding something Well, you are going to have to try harder. The claimed altered post has remained the same and is still up for all to see in the below links.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Let me know when you intend to discuss POLITICS. I wont be taken in by the dishonesty of my fellow candidates any longer.

The post is up, three times now for ALL to see.
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital


The fact that Gimme_Some_Truth states he is for the people and that he has nothing to hide is destroyed by his actions in which he takes.



Don't insult the intelligence of the people. You are accusing me of hiding something when the post in question is up for all to see is up THREE times now?


Cute, but really, the people are not stupid.

Let me know when you are ready to discuss the issues.
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42

Correct, with the subject of member qualifications being the primary direction of debate.

I am impressed with the way you've handled yourself, just a simple statement, but one that the the voters should be aware of. Your caliber of character is shining through, something that I didn't see in the early stages of this campaign.


I am glad you are impressed with an attempt to make it look like I hid part of my post...Despite it being up now, three times in this thread.

Who is the one being dishonest, my friend? Not me.

Let's say for a moment that the topic is member qualifications. Cool, let me know when you guys want to talk about that, rather than make up bogus claims of me hiding a post...even though it has been posted three times for all to see.


If you guys are not going to take this debate seriously, how can the members expect any of you to take the position seriously?

Let me know when you guys are ready to debate politics rather than makeup clearly bogus accusations of me hiding posts...Even though the post in question is STILL up and has been posted again for all to see, two more times, making this supposedly hidden post, up on this thread, three times now....

Is this how you three intend on treating members who have a differing viewpoint? Are you going to make up bogus claims about them to,in a failed attempt to make them look bad?

The people wont get such behavior and false accusations from me. The post that was supposedly hidden has been posted a total of three times. If that is your definition of hidden.... I suggest you buy a dictionary guys.

Shame on you all for trying to play dirty. I will continue to run a fair and clean campaign no matter how much you try to drag me down into these games.

Get back to me when you guys intend on taking this seriously.
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I have a novel idea. Lets debate politics, shall we? Seeing as this IS a political debate....


Ladies and gentleman, please notice that my opponents completely bypassed the request to actually debate politics in this political debate, and instead chose to attempt an attack against me, claiming that I am hiding a post, ignoring the fact that this post has been put up, three times for all to see.

If they want to play dirty, good for them. However, I will not play dirty.I will keep my campaign clean and fair as I have said from the beginning.

No ATS Regent should ever play dirty ( No matter how hard they failed at it).I will let them make up false accusations about their opponents, if that is really how they want to spend this election.

I will go talk with the people, help the people and work with the people, rather than get sucked into a game in which everyone just sits around and makes up bogus claims.

My words,my stance on the issues and my experience all speak for themselves.... To my opponents, have fun bashing each other.

But I will not bash back.


Again, please get back to me when you want to actually discuss the issues rather than make things up.
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Ahhhh...IMO...that was bashing..just your way of bashing.

Des



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Acknowledging false accusations against me and telling my opponents that I will only play fair, is bashing to you.


Duly noted.
edit on 22-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join