It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The real problem is that ATS is no longer a conspiracy forum, it has become a debunking forum. It's great and all to demand proof, and argue what you know to be the truth, and get to the facts, but it has gotten to the point where people do it with a snotty, arrogant, 'I know everything' tone... and all it does is piss people off.
originally posted by: Informer1958
I am not the only one on here that believes this, you just had another poster say the similar thing here. You are correct I don't have proof, however reading this member content on a daily basic and the member repeatedly using the same old media propaganda and some of it as now been proven false and using edited videos which was proven by another credible member who brought real science to his 911 thread and the member in question was ask to stop using these tampered video to demonstrate there was no explosion from the WTC and yet this member still is using them while claiming to be authority over the 911 topic.
Now this is wrong.
I thought ATS was firmed about members not to be allowed to use proven fraudulent sources. And pulling some of their information from well known OS bias websites like 911 Myths.
I thought ATS looked down on sources that have been proven as disinformation.
This is not about disagreeing with this member this is much more. It doesn't matter what the thread topic is, as soon as this member come in many ATSers leave. ............Only a few stick around.........
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Just my 2 cents, but I spend much of my time in the vitriolic political forums and if the 9/11 forums are worse, then they should probably have an NC-17 rating, or a warning before entering.
:/
originally posted by: Wookiepbut this thread is one-sided. It only appears to address the bad behavior of anti-OS posters. Which is nonsense imo. Yes, 'truthers' break the rules here, but I have seen countless OS supporters doing the same thing.
The OP only provides 'truther' comments, which makes the OP seem extremely biased IMO. So what's the deal? Is this a consppiracy site or not? I became a memeber here thinking it was...I'm having my doubts lately. My God, just look at how some of the more out of the box threads have become here lately. Constant insults by 'debunkers' and such. More emphasis needs to be put on that crap. Why are we all here anyway? To discuss mainstream bs?
originally posted by: Debunkology
originally posted by: Informer1958
I am not the only one on here that believes this, you just had another poster say the similar thing here. You are correct I don't have proof, however reading this member content on a daily basic and the member repeatedly using the same old media propaganda and some of it as now been proven false and using edited videos which was proven by another credible member who brought real science to his 911 thread and the member in question was ask to stop using these tampered video to demonstrate there was no explosion from the WTC and yet this member still is using them while claiming to be authority over the 911 topic.
Now this is wrong.
I thought ATS was firmed about members not to be allowed to use proven fraudulent sources. And pulling some of their information from well known OS bias websites like 911 Myths.
I thought ATS looked down on sources that have been proven as disinformation.
This is not about disagreeing with this member this is much more. It doesn't matter what the thread topic is, as soon as this member come in many ATSers leave. ............Only a few stick around.........
Exactly, and ......Only a few stick around......
And the people that stick around long enough, come to the impression that there is two types of moderators on the 9/11 ATS forum. The official moderators of this forum, and the very small group of unofficial moderators who monitor the board on a daily basis to hijack and derail any thread that does not correspond with the official 9/11 story. Which is bizarre to say the least.
I used to be a moderator of another forum. What I don’t understand is how the moderators are handling this situation. Because it seems to me that certain individuals (who believe in the official conspiracy theory) are constantly protected. They are allowed to dish out the “truther” label and attack fellow members, but moderators only seem to be concerned when these posters are attacked and not the other way around. I am not saying this is done purposely, maybe unwittingly.
Like this thread for example. The thread was started by ATS owner saying there is repeat offenders. Yet the four prime examples (unless I read them wrong), are very one sided.
If so, I am disillusioned by it all. It seems to me, that ATS moderators are more concerned with its members being labelled “shills” than members who have genuine interest in alternative narrative being ridiculed or attacked. In this case, it’s not looking good for the future of this once great “conspiracy forum”. Instead we have culture were official government narrative must be adhered to. That is a very strange position for an alternative website.
'cutting off the nose to spite the face' comes to mind.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Bill, this is synonymous with the meme of "flogging a dead horse".
For some reason these individuals think that what they write will actually change their opponents stance on the matter!
Some folks just don't know when to give up and walk away.
We're not allowing members to block other members. If someone's not mature enough to post with appropriate decorum, or not be able to contain themselves after reading a post, then they shouldn't be posting on ATS.
Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply. The legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is:
"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person."
This is of course a very broad definition, which state and federal legislation and common law have narrowed and refined in various ways. However, for our purposes, WHOA defines online harassment as any actions that meet the qualifications of the above definition after the harasser has been told to cease.
It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, it just seems to me like every argument that could be made by all parties concerned was made during the first 10 years and I'm hard-pressed to think of any revelations after that. At some point it seems like beating a dead horse to keep repeating the same arguments over and over and....
originally posted by: kosmicjack
I honestly can't believe the number of members on a CT site just willing to #can a discussion forum on 9/11. Wow. How about if you don't like it, don't click it?
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FlySolo
Here's a link to the terms and conditions:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Maybe you can find the part that says paid posters can't be here, or that posters have to post on more than one topic.
As long as they stay within the T&C, they can post here. I don't know how to make that more clear.
As for staff decisions, they are made based on those same T&Cs.
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: hellobruce
See? it's this circular crap. Bruce, stop messing and answer my question. If you're intelligent like I think you are, then you would come to the same conclusion as me.
No it's not disinfo if they don't agree with me. It's disinfo when I realize they're paid to post.
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: FlySolo
If you're intelligent like I think you are, then you would come to the same conclusion as me.
So people who do not agree with you are .....
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: whatsup86
If posters violate the T&Cs those posts will be removed by staff, as long as we are aware of them. If people don't alert them, we don't see everything. And not everything that people think is a violation, actually is a violation.