It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.'s Wikipedia File

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:30 PM
I generally think the mods do an excellent job here and it is a site that stands as an example to the future. I enjoy
forum posting and reading here as much as other people enjoy watching TV in their free time. I have learned a lot from threads and feedback to my posts. I also understand why the mods have been erring on the side of caution at times, particularly with the subject of drugs.

One last (minor) point makes me question the necessity of some minor censorship effect though: automatic deletion relating to the very name of a much smaller competitor conspiracy forum (I think due to its entirely different style and audience and moderation policies, angellike productions does not pose a real threat - substitute the creator of the universe wherever you wish), as well as the (non-forum) site of a certain radical Polish philosopher (who used to have some bitter debate with ATS, I forgot about what exactly though, and I guess so did most people who know them too...) It would be enough in my opinion - perhaps after all these years - to add an automatic disclaimer to such posts (something like, "this post refers to an untrustworthy site," or, "to a site unfairly critical of ATS").

But there might also be technical reasons I do not understand.
(Anyway, I wonder how the moderators can read all our stuff all the time...)

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:45 PM
as with all establishments like ATS, you have to look at
what you cannot talk freely about.

9/11 media fakery/no planes, sandy hook media fakery,
revisionist history regarding hitler etc. etc.

gatekeeping and intelligence gathering was always the name of the game.

but the tide has turned, and ATS is now being allowed enough rope
so that it can hoist itself by its own petard.

this is where their deliberately controversial sandy hook policy comes into play.

thanks for the memories ATS.

all is good.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:50 PM
Wiki leaks?
Come on,you can do better than that.
If only you knew.
But I will leave it at that and nothing more.

Either play nice in the sand box or go to another sand box where they don't play so nice.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:06 PM
Right/wrong, good/bad...whatever. Most of that stuff simply doesn't belong on a Wiki page.

The guy or girl must have been a real peach as a member here.

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Crakeur
haters gonna hate.

I really don't think it's about hating..

but to each their own

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:24 AM
What a load of crap.

You know the rules when you join, break em, your out.

How many Sandy hook threads/posts are on ATS, almost as many as 911 I'm going to guess (ok not quiet but you get the point)

in my almost 8yrs here I've never seen the mods do anything sinister or really over the top. If this was a censored govenrment piece, im sure as hell half of my threads would have been voided.

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:10 AM
Whoever wrote those criticisms should probably start their own conspiracy site with their own rules and stuff.

Whining doesn't get you anywhere

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 07:44 PM
Still not convinced over Whispers In The Dark..

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in