On posting in ATS

a reply to: intrptr

Look at it this way, you're so certain trusting of your judgement for what people are really like from their on line content… would you marry them, let them take your daughter out on a date, loan them money, rent a house to them sight unseen based on their scribblings?

None of that is relevant, though, is it? I don’t need to know ATS members as well as their mothers or spouses or business partners know them. I just need to understand them on a sort of office-party level.

How about sitting on a jury, judging their guilt or innocence in a court of law without ever seeing the defendant? How would you like a jury and judge to have trial without you being present if you were that innocent defendant?

I don’t see how this applies at all.

real life is different.

You certainly got that right. But the online world has its social pleasures (and dangers) too.

I can see your opinion is popular, to me it reflects a change to how people react nowadays. Social media convicts people in the court of public opinion nowadays with dismissive abandon.

This isn’t what I meant. It’s about understanding people’s hearts, not about condemning them. Maybe my opinion is popular with members who like to do the same thing. People who are interested in people as individuals.

a reply to: Astyanax

Unfortunately, without knowing someone's personal history, mental health status, etc. we have only anonymous posts from which to formulate an opinion. I prefer to hear both (or more sides of the story, so to speak) so that my view and understanding of "where this person is coming from" can be more informative and this can only be obtained from personal and intimate interaction, unless with time and observance of repeat posts confirming potential truths (which still may indicate a state of denial or an attempt to make oneself appear to be something they are not). Then we are working with a 'benefit of the doubt' judgement - not a good thing without proof.

As an example, take the case of a jilted lover who puts the sole blame on the jilter out here on ATS. I notice all too often judgement from responders is, of course, tilted toward the jilted one because of lack of information or transparency, or denial or refusal of the jilted to take responsibility, or a social popularity situation; one-sided dismissive abandon is right.

a reply to: intrptr

You're far too paranoid, and perhaps a little on the autistic spectrum? Most people seem quite capable of imagining the person they're chatting with to a fair degree of accuracy.

As for the OP, she's quite genuine and pleasant company. I'd consider her a personal friend at this point. Don't look too deeply into her words, she's just trying to break through barriers and question what we take for granted.

a reply to: InTheLight

Unfortunately, without knowing someone's personal history, mental health status, etc. we have only anonymous posts from which to formulate an opinion.

Yes, I think we all realize that is the situation. But ‘anonymous posts’ convey sufficient information to formulate one.

a reply to: Astyanax

so which is it? What you said before…

The members of ATS are far from complete strangers to me. I remember their screen names, their avatars and their personalities. I can tell from their posts not only much of what they believe but also a lot about their background, education, interests and personalities.

or now this…

I don’t need to know ATS members as well as their mothers or spouses or business partners know them. I just need to understand them on a sort of office-party level.

I read you loud and clear, you disagree to be disagreeable, shape shift to to suit your argument.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: intrptr

You're far too paranoid, and perhaps a little on the autistic spectrum? Most people seem quite capable of imagining the person they're chatting with to a fair degree of accuracy.

Using your imagination (like you just did on me, without having met real world) is hardly objective and exactly what I'm talking about. Its not about paranoia its about reserving judgment. Its not about not giving trust, its about earning it, over time. Hardly possible by internet "chatting", however long you engage someone.

"Fair degree of accuracy " is also vague and easily mis interpreted. I don't agree with your viewpoint so thats cause for medical diagnosis… lol. Good thing you're not a forensic psychologist.

On the starring and flagging at ATS, since people seem to be getting stuck on this:

I’ve thought a little more about it and I want to also point out that not only is the star and flag system good for giving incentive to stick around (because of the emotional high it produces temporarily), it also… amazingly, is offensive just enough in order to possibly drive one to DO BETTER (it drives me to do better).

But, by doing better I don’t mean conforming to ways that don’t match your world view, religion, or etc. What I mean by "doing better" is when one puts forth the effort to communicate more effectively, by working to deliver more concise messages. As InTheLight put it on the previous page.

But, amazingly, it doesn’t drive ALL to do better (why is that?), and the ones who don’t want to change/put forth effort in mastering the english language in order to deliver a message efficiently and actually attempt communication… well they lack attention because no one can understand them. And they’re the ones who seem to be more negative and anti-s&f and they’re the ones who seem to be calling it all a popularity contest and “unfair,” but not I.

And all the folk here who are mildly implying that I’m just some starwhore… I often find that the amount of stars one receives DOES reflect on quality of content. Quality of content also reflects in the amount of responses there are. So there’s a definite positive correlation between a good subject with decent content and the amount of flags, stars, and responses one gains…

Cause lets get real, you don’t find poorly laid out posts with incoherent content getting a bah-jillion stars and flags and responses. You just don’t. Cause no one can frigging understand it. So yeah, there’s definitely something to it all and I think it will only truly offend those who refuse to actually communicate or for whatever reason, can't seem to evolve/better themselves. Those who want to remain ambiguous and confuse the reader… in order to make themselves feel smarter, perhaps? They’re the ones who will cry all night into their pillows about how no one understands them and how it's unfair I just received forty flags (which they will blame on my photo).

Idk, you tell me. Sometimes I cry into my pillow too, though.

And as for you, TheConstruKctionofLight, I try to star everyones posts in my own threads because I appreciate every response (unless it’s not nice, of course). I don’t go around starring every GD post on ATS, geez. I reserve that for my favorite posts and posters.

Hi Willingly, lol @ the group therapy comment. Yep!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Stars are more often the result of politics than anything else.

What? What do you mean, the result of politics? The amount of ATSers that I actually talk to on a relatively friendly and personal basis are like, 1. He's up there ^.

Yeah Astyanax, you go girl! lol, loving you.

If I had to add anything to that… I think it doesn’t matter if it’s online, or offline. We’re all “strangers” to one another… cause you never really truly know anyone even with personal history, mental health status, and etc.

I have encountered some extreme deceivers in my short lifetime (in person)… doesn’t matter how long you know someone, how much you think you know someone, they can always surprise you. Now, having said that… despite all the secrecy and betrayal that everyone is capable of, I think that, yeah, you can definitely get familiar with people’s personalities even in an online setting. Let’s not be dumb about it. We’re not exactly strangers.

And I think the term anonymous just applies to people who don’t want their real locations, names, and etc to be known… but one can profile(in a sense) any online participant via their online personality and what they contribute (specially if they think they are anonymous and the anonymity is allowing them the certain freedom to express what they truly believe, then the profile may be ever more accurate!).

So, if you’re going to post here, there’s a certain level of exposure going on no matter what. You can’t really hide yourself if you’re putting yourself out there. You might be able to hide behind VPN’s and etc. But your online persona… it does generate a kind of “vibe” that you can’t hide. And it's like, hypocritical to say "you don't know me" after you made a thousand posts on ATS for the public to read which might reveal all kinds of things about you, from what colors you like to the food you enjoy to your political views and how many wives you've had and etc! Don't be absurd, guys! (not you Astyanax, you're never absurd, ily).

K. Thnx for all the stars and flags, guys!

I love ATS, lol.

a reply to: geezlouise

I have encountered some extreme deceivers in my short lifetime (in person)… doesn’t matter how long you know someone, how much you think you know someone, they can always surprise you.

Exactly what I meant earlier…

Thanks for cluing me into your age, experience over a lifetime will show you how few people can be trusted ultimately. You never know who you are dealing with, many people are plastic, some dangerous, a lot more just taking advantage or leading delusional lives , lost in their self absorbed world of Disney, circuses, sports, church, whatever.

You will have many acquaintances, few real friends. The ones that over time prove themselves to you by sticking with you through the good and bad, they will be called true friends.

a reply to: intrptr

No. I'm stating you show difficulties reading between the lines. That's evident throughout your posts. This difficulty would explain your paranoia and inability to acurately read people online.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

No. I'm stating you show difficulties reading between the lines. That's evident throughout your posts.

Sorry about derailing… why, because we disagree?

Rather than insinuate, show me. Give me a for instance, if you would.

Thought not.

a reply to: vethumanbeing


I am often surprised by how much we have in common.

With respect to the topic I have been a member of this forum since when Skeptic Overlord posted daily.

It was fun and it still is.

This issue of anonymity plays into members comfort zones making more open to expressing ideas.

a reply to: geezlouise

What? What do you mean, the result of politics? The amount of ATSers that I actually talk to on a relatively friendly and personal basis are like, 1. He's up there ^.

I wish I could know you, but all I have is your words. I'm interacting with a screen, and we are missing out on smiles, a common environment, the chance to look at each other. Our bodies—the face, the hands, the posture, the voice—and the wealth of information that can bring to a relationship is absent. We guess even at their genders, their age, in absence of them explicitly divulging that information. We don't know anybody.

That is why I think this sort of relationship could never be personal. It's not social in any sense. In fact, it is anti-social. Treating what we're doing as "social" is dangerous, making it an easy tool of propaganda, and that is a frightening development that I think is becoming more and more apparent. People can generate social unrest with a tweet. People can lose their jobs for Facebook posts. For what exactly?

I suspect one day people will look back on social media as a strange fantasy.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Ten People who lost there jobs over social media mistakes

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: geezlouise

What? What do you mean, the result of politics? The amount of ATSers that I actually talk to on a relatively friendly and personal basis are like, 1. He's up there ^.

I wish I could know you, but all I have is your words. I'm interacting with a screen, and we are missing out on smiles, a common environment, the chance to look at each other. Our bodies—the face, the hands, the posture, the voice—and the wealth of information that can bring to a relationship is absent. We guess even at their genders, their age, in absence of them explicitly divulging that information. We don't know anybody.

That is why I think this sort of relationship could never be personal. It's not social in any sense. In fact, it is anti-social. Treating what we're doing as "social" is dangerous, making it an easy tool of propaganda, and that is a frightening development that I think is becoming more and more apparent. People can generate social unrest with a tweet. People can lose their jobs for Facebook posts. For what exactly?

I suspect one day people will look back on social media as a strange fantasy.

For once , I totally agree with you.

I dislike social media. It creates herd mentality and kills individuality.

a reply to: crowdedskies


Don't you think it makes little sense to put down something you are using?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: vethumanbeing
I am often surprised by how much we have in common.
With respect to the topic I have been a member of this forum since when Skeptic Overlord posted daily.
It was fun and it still is. This issue of anonymity plays into members comfort zones making more open to expressing ideas.

Define *common*. Unwise to involve/invoke the name of the owner of this Website and also presume to know their personal/posting habits. No issue regarding protecting ones anonymity (it is what it is for a reason). All respect given to you as a member of this forum (four years and counting).

a reply to: vethumanbeing


I posted then under the name of Toltec, it is unwise to form assumptions about motivations.

I simply like the site.

Common in the sense of how much indigenous people can relate to how contemporary systems of belief are akin.

a reply to: geezlouise
Very interesting analysis of the ATS "boards" geezlouise... Perhaps you have discovered a potentially Clever CONSPIRACY.



NAMASTE*******