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.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So is your point that I am only allowed to bring up these types of connections if I launch into a dissertation about the dubious or questionable history of these organizations.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Blanket guilt-by-association styled attacks will not be tolerated in any form within the context of 9/11 discussion without backup.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
it should be clear that we can not assume the innocence of high profile witnesses who have been heavily cited by the suspect in support of the official story so to specifically have these individuals "protected" against scrutiny of this type built into the rules of this forum seems like a direct contradiction to the entire point of having a "9/11 conspiracy" forum to begin with.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
High profile official story supporting witnesses are actually suspects in an investigation into a 9/11 conspiracy which is what this forum is supposed to be about.
Don't you agree?
Why is this very simple concept of civilized behavior so difficult to understand?
Jim Hoffman suggests that we need to establish basic guidelines of behavior within the 9/11 community to help create an environment that is sympathetic to our goal of justice:
“If people are going to inject racism or ad hominem attacks and disruption—why do we waste our time opening our forums to people who do that? There should be these basic guidelines, norms that we follow, and I’ve seen so much resistance to establishing that kind of environment from some of the leaders of the movement. [It’s essential to have a] civil environment in which we can [critique each other] and show that 9/11 was an inside job… the nature of this 9/11 cover-up is—to inject nonsense into the investigation, surround our valid analysis of the attack that can be used in straw-man attacks in the Media, and to create this culture within the movement that is hostile to critique. Our challenge is to create a culture that has these guidelines that doesn’t accept this over-the-line, outrageous [behavior]. What people are making excuses for it, and what people are pointing it out? Maybe that’s a better indicator of who should be recognized as who is really contributing to this movement.”
Understanding the Psychology of Disruption
While it is human to be upset or angry, those who disrupt intentionally are on a mission. They hope that moderators, those in control of forums, and everyone else will ignore their destructive behavior so that they can keep doing it. They want to fight—they do not want to have dialog. Their only purpose is to disrupt. Their chief weapons are divisive labels, accusations, straw-man arguments, controversial issues, and ad hominem.
Originally posted by Damocles
this isnt salem...
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why is this very simple concept of civilized behavior so difficult to understand?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
High profile official story supporting witnesses are actually suspects in an investigation into a 9/11 conspiracy which is what this forum is supposed to be about.
Don't you agree?
It doesn't matter if I, or any other staff members agrees or not. What matters is how we on ATS present ourselves. It's not proper to attack someone who, on the surface, is merely relating what they experienced. If you cannot refute their account with appropriate evidence, don't assail their character.
Why is this very simple concept of civilized behavior so difficult to understand?
Originally posted by SimiusDei
It is not often that I will say this, but you may well be wasting the energy of your fingers by replying to these "questions".
Jasn
personality attacks directed toward........those who have been in the mainstream news as reported witnesses the events on 9/11/2001.
[...]
....or tell their first-hand 9/11 stories, then do so with facts and reasoned analysis. Simply stating they're a member of a "sect,".....or any other simplistic "guilt by association" statement will result in a "9/11 Madness" warning.
[...]