Thread respondents who don't read the original post (OP), and dishonest posters.

As someone who posts on ATS reasonably regularly, I find there are a number of things that frustrate me. Of course with any forum there will be annoying aspects, but there are two things which I feel are disrespectful to the Deny Ignorance motto of the site, and to the intelligence of those who do actively participate in discussions.

Firstly, there are those who do not read the OP. For example, I recently authored a recent thread about Windows 10 installing itself on some user's computers due to deceptive behaviour from Microsoft. I clearly stated in my OP that this was not a problem for me as I have installed software that prevents this happening. Lo and behold, in my thread there were some respondents telling me that I should install GWX control panel, which I mentioned as having done in the first paragraph. There also seems a tendency to react immediately rather than read anything other than the title of a thread. Often I see posters outright ignoring the OP. For instance, in climate change threads there is often the seemingly ubiquitous 'Al Gore' reference without context. If a poster doesn't believe in climate change, that is fine, but ignoring the main gist of a particular thread to state 'Al Gore/carbon tax' does not really compute as a response to an OP not about Al Gore or a carbon tax. Refute the arguments presented, don't introduce red herrings.

The second thing that is frustrating and even more ignorant, are those who are outright deceptive or lying either in threads they create, or threads they respond to. Using dubious sources is something done regularly, but when a source is shown to be deceptive or lying, it would be refreshing to see more posters admit their source is dodgy, rather than moving onto another (often irrelevant) argument to try and prove their point. I see this in across the boards in many forums, from the political, to UFOs and Aliens, and Chemtrails. When someone is so stuck in their immediate bias that they will not admit to ever being wrong does not bide well for denying ignorance. In a discussion the other day, a poster used a Wikipedia quote to prove a point - the problem was that the Wikipedia edit stating this poster's spurious information had only been edited just prior to using that incorrect quote, the only edit of the day. Did the poster change the Wikipedia entry to use a fake quote in an ATS discussion? It cannot conclusively be proven, but the time of the edit and the quote used are definitely suspicious.

I don't care if you disagree with me, and indeed, it would be a pretty boring site if everybody did so. It would however be nice if those responding to threads took the time to read the OP which could allow for a higher quality discussion. It would be foolish to expect the partisan politics of ATS to die down, or the believers vs skeptics to stop arguing, but when called out on a spurious source it might improve the discussion to admit one's own error.

For those engaging in outright lies and deception, I wonder why they are here?
Is it for discussion, or is there some other agenda at play?

I also find it annoying sometimes when people don't read the replies to the OPs post and you then get multiple replies stating the same thing or the same sources.

I understand some threads are very long but I see this quite often on new posts where you may get a few replies in a row stating the same thing.

a reply to: cuckooold
You should put GWX Control Panel on your computer.
Al Gore. Enuff said!
What was wrong with my Wiki edit?!... Doh!!!


Good rant, but such is life on the intertubez. S&F.

a reply to: cuckooold

Unfortunately, most people live in a land of their opinion which colors their view of everything.

For example, you may post an OP on one topic and they instead reply as if you were addressing whatever is at the forefront of their consciousness.

That being said, I must confess that I do use Wikipedia with the assumption that the data is actually relevant and moderated by experts. In the situation you described, it could have been a mistake or it could have been deceptive use of Wikipedia.

In regard to Windows 10 deceptive upgrades I have watched in amazement as Microsoft first created a dialog that would do the opposite of what users expect, then later discarded their own UI guidelines to 'hide' the problem (removing the 'X' close button) rather than a rewrite of the faulting application. The first may have been a genuine mistake but the second is just plain sloppy.

a reply to: cuckooold

When someone is so stuck in their immediate bias

There you go cuck. You got it. And you know what else goes on? Thread authors whose biases cause them to author numerous threads in a period of a couple of hours or so, all with the same agenda, bashing this or that with what they think of as a right hook, then later a left hook, and then knockout upper cut. In responding to these one can find that the return replies are not thoughtful at all, just more of the regurgitated bias because they are to busy authoring other controversial threads of highly emotional appeal. It's like there is a contest to see who can be the most ardent exposer of the 'other' sides evil intentions. Over and over and over and over and over.

a reply to: chr0naut

For example, you may post an OP on one topic and they instead reply as if you were addressing whatever is at the forefront of their consciousness.

Well, I read all the posts before mine and when I went back and read yours again I found that maybe I had just done that, replied with what was in my own forefront, so sorry OP if I drifted.

OP: you just described every single internet user who participate in open forums or any platform which allows user comments.

P.S.

i only read up to the second paragraph of your post. then i imagined what you're trying to say, then i translated it into what i think you're trying to say. then i gave a semi- ill informed response that at least has a modicum or relevance to the OP.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: cuckooold

Unfortunately, most people live in a land of their opinion which colors their view of everything.

For example, you may post an OP on one topic and they instead reply as if you were addressing whatever is at the forefront of their consciousness.

That being said, I must confess that I do use Wikipedia with the assumption that the data is actually relevant and moderated by experts. In the situation you described, it could have been a mistake or it could have been deceptive use of Wikipedia.

Wiikipedia has a tendancy to "disappear" people they do not like. Prominant, known people.
How reliable is that for info?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
OP: you just described every single internet user who participate in open forums or any platform which allows user comments.

P.S.

i only read up to the second paragraph of your post. then i imagined what you're trying to say, then i translated it into what i think you're trying to say. then i gave a semi- ill informed response that at least has a modicum or relevance to the OP.

no man,, you nailed it dude...dang good interpolator too....

a reply to: cuckooold

I sometimes find that by the time I've typed up a reply and hit the reply button, there's been a couple of fast fingered folk who beat me to it with similar remarks.

It may look like I've repeated their replies but I'm just too slow.

Sorry.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: cuckooold

Unfortunately, most people live in a land of their opinion which colors their view of everything.

This is not something that is limitied to the internet and is a real bug bear with me in real life.

I very rarely start a conversation these days as I fail to see the point with most people as they do the exact same thing with an opening statement as they do with a thread title.

So if I say to someone "I am thinking of going to Italy for a holiday" they will here "holiday" and then say "You should go to spain on your holidays, I went there last year" and then I spend half an hour listening to someone esle's story about a holiday in a country I have no intention of travelling to.

It really really does annoy me.

a reply to: nonspecific

Holidays?

You should go to Wales. We went one year and drove down the whole coast, stopping off at...

Sorry again.
I know what you mean.

originally posted by: cuckooold
... spurious sources...

Ok, I read the whole thing.
As far as 'spurious sources', I would consider the Bible to be a "spurious source" for anything other than metaphor and myth.
There are those who consider it the penultimate source of Truth!
Both are correct!
Truth is ALL inclusive!

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics

"There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil." - Alfred North Whitehead

a reply to: cuckooold

The second thing that is frustrating and even more ignorant, are those who are outright deceptive or lying either in threads they create, or threads they respond to. Using dubious sources is something done regularly, but when a source is shown to be deceptive or lying, it would be refreshing to see more posters admit their source is dodgy, rather than moving onto another (often irrelevant) argument to try and prove their point. I see this in across the boards in many forums, from the political, to UFOs and Aliens, and Chemtrails. When someone is so stuck in their immediate bias that they will not admit to ever being wrong does not bide well for denying ignorance.

I agree!

I see everything you describe in most of the 911 threads, It's disgusting.

In my "opinion" there are one or two members that sit in the 911 threads and ridicule everything such as anyone who doesn't believe in the official narratives of 911 are subject to ridiculing, & name calling.

The biggest trend right now is calling members who don't support the OS narratives "Truthers", Silly Truther believe in silly conspiracies theories.

The fact is, no matter what credible evidence such as science, and credible sources, you bring to the 911 thread topic it is ridiculed by mostly one or two repeated members.

Even I have to walk away because of the Juvenal behavior. Theses issues have been address numerous times, even by skeptic Overlord who has tried to find a way to stop this kind of behavior by having the 911 threads monitored closely.

There are some really good posters on the 911 threads who really bring credible sources to the threads topics to back up their claims.

Truthfully, I do not know what it will take to stop all the insults towards members who do not buy the OS narratives.

Here is an idea, perhaps after three warnings of name calling by the same member he or she should be banned.

Listen closely. You are on a conspirace site and virtually ALL conspiracies start from dodgy sites and sources cos if they were not dodgy they would be proven facts and they wouldn't be conspiacies would they.
Roll with the flow. What's one mans "truth" is another mans "lie". That is what this site is all about, only some people repeat what they believe is the truth and in the act of repeating they re-enforce their reason as truth.
God, I had to think about that so I hope it made sense.

a reply to: crayzeed

ALL conspiracies start from dodgy sites and sources cos if they were not dodgy they would be proven facts and they wouldn't be conspiacies would they.

I have to kindly disagree.

25 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE

conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Tulpa

It is still up to the person that is dealing with it.

Clash royale hack