Chemtrail Forum and the T&C.

seems to me the OP was not addressing either the chemtrail 'believers' or the 'disbelievers'. the message seems to apply equally to all, as i read it.

reply to post by RoScoLaz


Me too, and you DO see posts removed from both sides. I flagged two tonight, one has gone, one has not, but I'm sure the mod concerned made an honest call on that one too and maybe I got it wrong.

Yes, I just posted network dude calling me a shill and being paid in another post and bam, its gone.

Fishy fishy.

reply to post by waynos


There is something very important to keep in mind, and I want to thank you for taking a moment to consider what you see from different perspectives.

Almost without exception (exceptions come when something is so blatant as a violation, it speaks for itself.) things are done at ATS as a group and with a consensus among more than one person, with regard to Moderator actions.

It's rare someone sees a thing done, and is actually looking at just the one person they see saw the name in U2U notification for. Very likely, there were 3 or 4, and sometimes more people directly involved with whatever the issue may have been, before action happened.

This is something I found it very helpful to know and keep perspective with as things happened over the years I really wondered about the wisdom for. Sometimes...consensus isn't reached at all, and that does happen. I imagine that leaves a touch of confusion at times for what is and isn't seen as done, as well. It can't be helped while trying to have as fair a system as it's possible to have for everyone.

That's my small effort to pass on the favor of context I certainly appreciated the few times I saw a member of staff take a moment out to explain the above and how one aspect of things here function.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thank you for that, it certainty does help to place these things in perspective

sunnynights
Yes, I just posted network dude calling me a shill and being paid in another post and bam, its gone.

Fishy fishy.

One can only hope this is a trend that will extend to both sides. Dare I say, utopia?

reply to post by bluestorm


I am glad people are finally starting to see the light. Understanding contrails is a fantastic beginning!

It would be a fantastic beginning if people would understand this:

originally posted by: intrepid
ATS doesn't care if one believes in chemtrails or not. What the staff DOES care about is that the board is open to anyone that would like to post without fear of attack or insult. It's not a matter of ones position, it's a matter of civility. Members posting in this forum are on notice that the staff will begin a stricter approach to this forum as of this posting

This is an attempt by moderators to not have a select group of individuals at ATS continue systematically discouraging others from posting who may in one way or another indicate they are chemtrail believers. These members have made this a matter of dismissing and eventually ridiculing anyone's comments unless they are accompanied by hardcore empirical evidence of a type that is impossible to obtain (e.g., so then what was the chemical composition of the chemtrails you photographed...) .

But this group will continue to rationalize for us why it's okay to disrespect the people who refuse "to see the light" about understanding contrails in the same way that a select group of ATSers do who continue pouncing on other members for their opinions running counter to the "facts" that are both appropriately and inappropriately used to "debunk" any claim made by something associated in any way with chemtrail conspiracy theory.

It isn't for the better that people are being silenced here, certainly not in the name of upholding some "extreme empiricism" (i.e., if there is no evidence for something we can conclude it does not exist).

a reply to: Petros312

I'm a firm believer in civility, but you have taken offence at some things I have written where none existed. In such cases this looks tactical, ie avoiding the issue. If you were genuinely offended, I apologise for that.

I believe that the example you mentioned above (so then what was the chemical composition of the chemtrails you photographed...) is a perfectly acceptable response IF someone posts along the lines of "these photographs are definitely chemtrails, I know this for a fact". Such a claim would presuppose a positive ID via analysis, would it not? I've found that more realistic posts, such as "these trails in the photographs concern me, I feel they could be chemtrails" will elicit an entirely civil and reasonable response.

I would like to see how an honest and open discussion with your good self would go, instead of you just offering your critique of other people's opinions as we have had so far.

Bumping as a reminder.

originally posted by: waynos
I would like to see how an honest and open discussion with your good self would go, instead of you just offering your critique of other people's opinions as we have had so far.

Did I miss somewhere in the terms of service and decorum ethics that it's a violation to scrutinize what someone is saying?

I shouldn't be responding here because I'm afraid I'm falling into other people's traps set to mar my character. Someone apologizes but then entices me to violate forum decorum so that it will lead to violations and posts being removed, and people who are banding together in small factions as "debunkers" are indeed doing this. I've actually done quite well to NOT get openly angry with people. For example, consider what you're saying in the above quote:

1. I do not have open and honest discussions

2. what I have done so far is only critique other people's opinions

3. taken together, my participation is nothing but problematic at ATS.

How could anyone defend that the underlying meaning of your comment, which is utterly nothing but your own personal opinion, is not incendiary?

To ME, your comment is exactly the type that you should be keeping to yourself if you don't want to offend someone. I have made it a point numerous times to say overtly that I am NOT attacking someone, only their claims. But people who come under the eye of critical thinking are saying things like this in reply:

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
Ah, Angry Man With Beard returns to the party. Long time no see.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
But you're so beautiful when you're angry...
...people like you are what make ATS so entertaining for people like me.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros
I see you have made another post full of foul-smelling wind but entirely lacking in substance. Have a nice day.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
I am happy to discuss almost anything with anyone but I won't be cowed by the lies of would be Internet bullies with too high an opinion of themselves.

Big kiss, sweet cheeks xx

originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Petros312
...you have done a fantastic job at showing how upset you can act...

All of this is still in the thread it came from. It's all an ad hominem type approach within the context of the threads posted. It deserves to be exposed.

This is precisely why I cannot have open and honest discussions with certain members, so please stop accusing me of being the one who is problematic.

originally posted by: network dude

Misterlondon
reply to post by network dude

 

That's exactly what a shill would say..

On a serious note that place is like the wild west and it seems like that same old crap over and over again (from both side of the argument).......I don't like to play in there..

I know. You can only explain contrails so many ways, before you repeat yourself. I am of the opinion that Intrepids signature is particularly true to this forum. So many here are just about talking. SO few are about LEARNING.

Accept Everything, Believe Nothing.

a reply to: Petros312

This is precisely why I cannot have open and honest discussions with certain members, so please stop accusing me of being the one who is problematic.

You are responsible for your own posts. Honest discussion requires honesty.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Petros312
You are responsible for your own posts.

It is a basic existential truth that I can only be responsible for myself, which is actually part of the dilemma for each of us here as soon as someone responds to your post.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Petros312
Honest discussion requires honesty.

A tautology.

a reply to: Petros312

It is a basic existential truth that I can only be responsible for myself

As one of our esteemed members likes to say,(might be a paraphrase, can't swear it's a direct quote but it's at least very close) truth apart from love does not exist, all else is perspective. I think that's nonsense and a self-defeating argument however it is true that they have said it a number of times.

Besides, many people are actually responsible for the actions of others. Whether or not one is honest in discussion is completely on them.

A tautology.

Deduction for style points or something more substantial? Doesn't matter, there was no tautology. Perhaps if you could indicate why you believe there was I could correct the mistaken notion.

a reply to: intrepid

Funny...

A core principle of ATS is providing our members a place where they can discuss "alternative" topics without fear of intimidation, ridicule or retaliation.

ATS and "without fear of intimidation, ridicule or retaliation" all in one sentence?

We ARE talking about ATS, right ?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Petros312
A tautology.

Deduction for style points or something more substantial? Doesn't matter, there was no tautology. Perhaps if you could indicate why you believe there was I could correct the mistaken notion.

Tautology
Top of the page. I like this one:

"a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form."

In other words, the statement, "Honest discussions requires honesty," is so obvious it doesn't need to be said. But by all means I'm not trying to tell you not to say it if that's what you want. I can't be responsible for anyone but myself.

a reply to: Petros312

Tautology

Top of the page. I like this one:

"a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form."

I see, the "Logic" definition.

In other words, the statement, "Honest discussions requires honesty," is so obvious it doesn't need to be said.

Apparently it does need to be said as you were making excuses for why you couldn't have honest discussion.

a reply to: Petros312

Can you point out a post of yours in the chemtrail forum in the last week that has not included a complaint about another poster?