posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:57 AM
To be honest I woke up this morning, read the replies here, and find myself fairly tempted to simply walk away from the conversation. I'm as
transparent as anyone online is - especially in the conspiracy community. My username here is the same username I use just about everywhere. A simple
Google search pretty much opens up my entire real life in the first page or two. I am not hard to find.
That fact is what makes it frustrating when the implications that I must surely know something sinister because I am an ATS moderator start getting
hinted at or tabled. I couldn't be more easy to trace and see - warts and all. I have nothing to hide... here or anywhere else. I do NOT work for the
government. Moreover... if I were to suspect - AT ALL - that anyone here, behind the scenes, were trying to manipulate me? I'd quit. It is that
Having said that I will try to address the points raised since I went to sleep last night.
I did not dig through all 20 pages. I did read maybe five or six and, yes, they read to me like every other thread on GLP reads to me. Lots of
excessive quoting, animated .gifs of men clapping and Jim Carey dancing in a pink skirt - interspersed with "anonymous cowards" posting dribble
in-between... with a few meaningful and on topic posts tossed into the mix. I'm not judging - as that format can be pretty entertaining and funny to
read. But it is not the best format for delivering information or having a discussion in.
I implied nothing of the sort. What I said was that an admin would have access to IP's of all posts and would also have access to the records of the
IP's that have been attached to previously banned or problematic accounts. It isn't that complicated. Also if the same email addresses are used to
create more than one account - even from behind proxies - this is easy to detect.
What I will say is that I am a moderator on a conspiracy site and I have never once been involved in a cover-up on behalf of any group at all.
The entire "SH can't be discussed on ATS" meme is tired. This is a private site, owned by people who get to make the rules. People here cannot
discuss marijuana either - but that doesn't mean ATS is killing the conversation and leaving the masses unable to discuss their drugs. It simply
means that they have to do it elsewhere. The same with Sandy Hook. I quit drinking a few years back. That doesn't mean that everyone who comes into
my home must be a T-totaller. It only means that they can't get drunk here.
Again, it's not complicated.
Scope and a Beam:
I imagine you bank online - many people do these days. If not, let's just pretend that you do and let's imagine that you are going back and forth,
between tabs, balancing your bank account and talking on ATS. At some point you inadvertently copy and paste your entire bank account page to ATS.
Account numbers, names, addresses, balances... the whole ball of wax. Do you then panic and make 25 sock puppet accounts to try and muddy the waters
or do you just edit the post out? If others had already screen captured your post - wouldn't you then simply contact ATS and ask them to not only
protect your private information but to remove those screen capture images from their image hosting and ban anyone who got hell bent upon trying to
get the images posted anyway?
Every thread about the subject would be trashed. Every single one. Those specific to the information and even those speaking about it in the abstract
- because even those abstract conversations would be morally questionable and potential dangers to your privacy and well being. Right?
Both the general subject of Sandy Hook and the supposed shill post we are discussing here fall into aspects of this approach. They are both open to
discussion in the abstract - meaning no personal information is being allowed. But the subjects themselves are freely open to debate.
People seem unwilling to accept a simple truth. Springer and SkepticOverlord did not ban the subject of Sandy Hook at all - but they did post very
strong statements limiting the scope of conversation and prohibiting any talk about trying to say that the victims of the tragedy were somehow
culpable. This was done because a small number of people kept insisting upon posting the real world contact information of victims and their
relatives. It has stymied me that some people want to see this as problematic. If, God forbid, somebody in any of your families were ever to be the
victim of a violent crime.. would YOU want strangers for conspiracy sites calling you and asking YOU if you were guilty of complicity? Asking if YOU
were a Freemason, or in the Illuminati? Telling YOU that they believe you are an actor and that your dead relative was really still alive and part of
How quickly would any of you sue a sight that allowed that to happen to you in that situation?