The ATS Issues Thread

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Just about every mainstream media television/cable news company has visited this thread several times, most of which within the first five days of appearing.

Over two-dozen, large mainstream newspapers have also visited this thread, with a spike in the first few days, and regular visits ever since.

There are links to this thread from over 200 different websites.

Since it was first posted, it remains in our top-10 most visited pages (including the site home page)... and has achieved over 600,000 views in a relatively short time.

One of the tidbits I didn't mention is that the thread has also been heavily visited by nearly every intelligence and law enforcement agency you can imagine.

Edit: to include enquoted thread

SkepticOverlord man, it's posts like that that make me wanna hide. makes me wonder what else they look at on this board eh?



[edit on 5/7/2008 by whatukno]

Does this thread have to be about the John Lear issue? Personally, I think there's nothing else to discuss with that, but it's none of my business.

I have a bone to pick of my own. Here is my problem:

ATS has many different people with many different opinions. I understand that. However, I do think there it is possible to tell a dissenting opinion from just straight up trolling.

The theme, or slogan, of this board is "Deny Ignorance". That seems next to impossible sometimes. We are often given no tools to do such when trolls come along. I could ignore the thread I suppose, but I'm just too darn stubborn to do that.

Let me cite an example of my problem:

Acording to recent developements, over 90% of blacks should be considered racist.

Now look, I know that this counts as an "opinion". I would even maybe listen to it if this guy would make coherent posts, but he doesn't. He just spews ignorance, hate, and nonsense to fan the flames.

It really puts ATS's more passionate posters in a corner. It leaves me, and probably others, with two choices:

1) Ignore the guy
2) Drop down to his level and crush him

Obviously I'll chose the second one ten out of ten times.

I mean, look at the stuff he's getting away with saying on your board! And I can't call this guy an idiot?

Originally posted by blimpseeker
so not trusting a white candidate because of things that happened to their ancestors is not racist? ok...

Originally posted by blimpseeker
recoup? black people voting today weren't even alive fifty years ago!
the "struggle" is a total cop-out for getting away with things whites couldn't possibly ever.
Can you imagine a "White Entertainment Television" channel being allowed to flourish?

You are displaying what has come to be known as "white guilt"
I wish you well recovering from it sir.

Bold was mine.

Originally posted by blimpseeker
"White Guilt" learn it, love it, live it.
It is the reason Barak is going to be the democratic candidate.


[edit on 7-5-2008 by blimpseeker]

Originally posted by blimpseeker
How many generations must we give special treatment to? hmm? should my kids, grandkids have to deal with all this reverse racism and white guilt? their kids? when is enough, enough?

when will we treat everyone as equals?

are blacks not equal to us? are they weaker? not as smart?

I think they are equal in every regard and I think they should be treated the same as whites, browns, reds and yellows.

He said all of this in response to us enslaving blacks. I don't know what "special treatment" he's referring to.

Originally posted by blimpseeker
Everyone knows Barak would not be where he is if he were white.

He is extremely limited in experience, his rheoteric is only good for speeches that are written for him, in a live tv situation he stumbles all over himself and shows his inexperience.

A young, good looking white guy with even more experience than Barak would not have gone as far..white guilt and black reverse racism has Barak where he is today...

As proof I give you,

JOHN EDWARDS.

Why can he say this without posting any evidence at all?

People get banned for lying about their identity without proof, but this guy can spread racist propaganda without any legitimate cause?

I don't really expect anyone to do anything, I suppose I just wanted to justify me insulting him.

It was my first ATS warn, and I think I used it wisely.

I find myself that these kinds of threads should just be ignored because if you ignore it it goes away. EVENTUALLY. People should just ignore a thread they feel is idiotic and not something we as a group would want to see.

The best way to defeat an internet troll is to not feed it.

Just my idea.

reply to post by Sublime620


Some people have "views" that are entrenched in an outmoded value system, and as such are prone to believe things which aren't true.

Some people see past social injustice, and the social factors which stemmed from it as an excuse to peddle opinion which is as bad as the things they profess to abhor.

Personally, I try not to get involved - it just gets my back up, and lessens the usually good time I have on ATS.

Having said that, I do like discussing these issues in a manner conducive to finding a "solution"

Unfortunately that doesn't happen often - racism is rife in every sphere of our societies, and some peoples opinion reflects that.
Those are the ones I stay away from, because I don't want to spoil my own enjoyment of the site - a selfish attitude perhaps, but I can live with that.

Trolls - don't feed them and they'll look for validation elsewhere

reply to post by budski


And you're right. Both of you.

I should have just closed the thread. I just have a hard time doing that...

When I see a wounded animal, I want to put it out of it's misery and end it's suffering.

These wounded animals don't want to die though...

*Edit:

I mean look what it brought in, Budski. First it was about Obama's fans being racist.

But the true agenda came out. One guy starts talking about sending them back to Africa. And the OP started talking about Affirmative Action.



[edit on 8-5-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I mean wha do members expect though?


This is an "Alternative Topic"site,of course there will be arguments an mad members,I think we all just have to deal with it.

I am really a newbie here .. but i can tell you from my experience that people are never happy with MODs ... People are not happy with Cops either...

I was banned twice in another forum and now i am very prominent member of that very forum... as it took me 6 months or so to figure out that bashing MODs is easier than understanding the nature of their Jobs!!! I know they can't make everybody happy and even God can't make everybody happy

i know at one point i would be feeling the same way as some folks feel here when i get any of my thread deleted or edited or warned .....

However one should realize you get all this free of cost... and this is the place owned by some people who let us in and enjoy the party and ultimately we should and ought to respect the T&C .... we can make our suggestions to help improve this Forum and even criticize it but rather should discuss such matters in private with MODs..... But if one can't get along then he should leave this place and start a forum site at his own where he can express his opinions the way he deems fit and make his own rules!!!!!

[edit on 8-5-2008 by LOYAL]

Originally posted by Sublime620
Why can he say this without posting any evidence at all?

.... coming from someone who goes around saying obama is 'change, hope, and unity' - when the PROOF says Obama is just opposite.
(Judical Watch Most Corrupt List, Rezko, Ayers, CFR, Uncle WRight, etc )

Careful what you wish for Sublime ... it may bite YOU in the butt.



[edit on 5/8/2008 by FlyersFan]

reply to post by FlyersFan




Don't believe what you read in the inquirer. If you want to talk politics, I'm all for it. I don't argue about the dirt, though.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Does my information above fill in the appropriate blanks?

Yes Sir... very much so. Thank you for answering my questions.

yr

My concern is not the reason why john got banned. I am concerned about how the members were openly lied to in ATS ownership's statement of John 'willingly retiring'. Makes me think what else have we been lied to about? I do not see this issue being addressed.

Originally posted by hikix
I am concerned about how the members were openly lied to in ATS ownership's statement of John 'willingly retiring'.

From our point of view, and his seeming unwillingness to resolve the issues, that's indeed how I and other ATS admin took it to be. As I and others mentioned several times, we left the door wide open to come together and discuss things and find a common ground... and we heard no more from him other than off-site accusations.

reply to post by FlyersFan


And I would love for you to find a post of mine where I said that about Obama.

Don't be misquoting me now...

Testing a new ATS feature that would allow anonymous posting on ATS threads.

This is just a test, please do not reply to this post.

I have only been posting here a short time but I have found the tone of the moderators to be extremely polite and lenient. The fact that the site owners actually take the time to address issues/complaints shows that they want the site to be a pleasant place for all members/visitors.

Those that think the admins/moderators are too harsh apparently have not posted on that many large forums. Anytime the mods are willing to DISCUSS the issue, or provide soft warnings instead of just deleting posts and/or threatening/banning users their restraint and decorum should be appreciated (most especially when the "issue" takes the form of blatant criticism of the site owners).

Then again some people have a problem with all forms of perceived authority no matter how it manifests.

Since Mark Springer just suddenly closed this thread,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
while I tried to post an extensive reply regarding this brave post from indierockalien :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will address one specific issue here, which is the only one left for me, after having read Bill and Mark replies in that thread :

-- snip -- "" you may not be approached in an "official" manner, but maybe simply approached indirectly by possibly some NEW FINANCIAL BACKERS, some celeb PR agencies, some good sounding business ventures, and the money will do the rest of the talking.""

"" - This is a business. Truth is not good for business, because the real truth would kill the market dead. Status quo is key to maintaining steady revenue.

- "Deny Ignorance" is to be respectful and not to (key root word here) IGNORE any info or word or personality or opinion. I find that hard to maintain in any environment that is based on capital gain and seemingly continuing the status quo. Because the very fact that you have financial backers [LT: could) means that you have collars with leashes on.

- The fact that you are so adamant about keeping this obvious illusion that "America is so free and great and look how beautiful our unadulterated speech is" is glaringly apparent when you so obviously treat this whole deal like this is some game that you can also line your pockets with on the side, and you basically laugh and snuff away at the fact that you would be a prime target for alphabet agencies and people with money and connections who wish to influence and/or stifle this sector of the population's opinions... it's suspicious. ""

Questions :
-- Are you restricted by contract, in telling your own membership, who your new investors are?
Why would a genuine positive contributer to this particular site want to keep his contribution a secret, especially when the site name is " ABOVE top-secret" !

-- If not restricted, are they in your opinion not connected in anyway to the so despised (by the overall ATS membership) military-industrial complex? If they are, would you be surprised to see members announce to leave? Would you lie about it if true, to protect your interests and their investment?

-- Why are you maintaining this site as if it was a mainly US site, while a great deal of your members are not from the US? It used to be a British site in the early days. A bit more global attitude would improve traffic.

-- Are you not registered in Delaware, so we can access your annually published business reports?
Do you realize, that you created this site, now loaded with investigative minds, who will be able to find out things you would perhaps like to hide about this site? So basically, it would be unwise to hide essential facts about your site. Openness will be your eternal friend, if your intentions are truly as you advertised.

-- snip -- "" you may not be approached in an "official" manner, but maybe simply approached indirectly by possibly some NEW FINANCIAL BACKERS, some celeb PR agencies, some good sounding business ventures, and the money will do the rest of the talking.""

"" - This is a business. Truth is not good for business, because the real truth would kill the market dead. Status quo is key to maintaining steady revenue.

Indeed, status quo.

The smart investor does not invest in business to change them, he invests in businesses that show promise. ATS grew to the point where there was significant promise in our plan to extend the core website via the Content Ecosystem concept. Any change in the formula that brought us this far would be considered a risk, since it was that formula (free and open expression) that got us this far.

"Deny Ignorance" is to be respectful and not to (key root word here) IGNORE any info or word or personality or opinion.

Incorrect.

The lofty ideal of "deny ignorance" implies many things, but among the more important concepts is the idea of being able to reject ignorance... give it no say. It's ignorant to believe the lies about ATS that have been fabricated out of an old April-Fools post... so in the true sense of "deny ignorance," such notions should be rejected and not given credence.

I find that hard to maintain in any environment that is based on capital gain and seemingly continuing the status quo. Because the very fact that you have financial backers [LT: could) means that you have collars with leashes on.

The vision portrayed here cannot be attained simply through good deeds or kind thoughts. It requires not just capital, but a plan to create a profitable model whereby the profits can be channeled into the growth represented by the Ecosystem.

But let's lay it on the table... can you point to one management decision, tactic, or style that has changed significantly (or even moderately) between now and eighteen months ago (a time at which we were not focused on the Ecosystem idea). Just one. If you can find one, we might have something to discuss. If you can't, then it would stand to reason there is no collar and no leash.

The fact that you are so adamant about keeping this obvious illusion that "America is so free and great and look how beautiful our unadulterated speech is" is glaringly apparent when you so obviously treat this whole deal like this is some game that you can also line your pockets with on the side, and you basically laugh and snuff away at the fact that you would be a prime target for alphabet agencies and people with money and connections who wish to influence and/or stifle this sector of the population's opinions... it's suspicious. ""

I have no idea where that comes from. That surely does not represent how I think about the current situation in America, nor does it represent how we manage ATS. Elaboration please?

Are you restricted by contract, in telling your own membership, who your new investors are?

As I understand it, they simply do not want to be publicized at this point. It's not an uncommon situation for any start-up venture, no matter what type of business.

Why would a genuine positive contributer to this particular site want to keep his contribution a secret, especially when the site name is " ABOVE top-secret" !

The money source would qualify as a small group of "Angel Investors" who are primarily individuals who have the same goal we do. These types of investors often prefer to remain private to avoid a plethora of queries related to other "investment opportunities" from a variety of sources... as is very typical once the "angles" become publicly apparent in one way or another.

are they in your opinion not connected in anyway to the so despised (by the overall ATS membership) military-industrial complex?

No, not even remotely.

In fact, very few are aware that we rejected a rather profitable and aggressive buy-out offer from a corporation that owned several media outlets, about a year ago. While the money and employment contracts would have been excellent, their plans and intentions for ATS were not appropriate. So... in essence, we rejected a lot of easy money in favor of a lot less money, but complete control.

Would you lie about it if true, to protect your interests and their investment?

Moot point, since it's not true. And as pointed out above, no need to lie as we rejected at least one offer we knew would not sit well with membership.

Why are you maintaining this site as if it was a mainly US site, while a great deal of your members are not from the US? It used to be a British site in the early days. A bit more global attitude would improve traffic.

We get 1 million unique visitors a month, slightly more than 300,000 of which are not from the U.S. To us, we do maintain a global site... what is it that you see makes ATS not global?

Are you not registered in Delaware, so we can access your annually published business reports?

We're a "Limited Liability Company," which is a version of a partnership, and as such our financials are only available to members.

Do you realize, that you created this site, now loaded with investigative minds, who will be able to find out things you would perhaps like to hide about this site? So basically, it would be unwise to hide essential facts about your site. Openness will be your eternal friend, if your intentions are truly as you advertised.

Can you point out where we have not been completely open, or our overt actions have been in contradiction to our expressed intention?


(typo fixes)

[edit on 12-5-2008 by SkepticOverlord]

You have answered all MY questions sufficiently.
I thank you for the time and effort.


I would like to point out the one and most significantly important effect most members are getting nervous from :

The massive inflow from adamant opposition "forces" over the last year.
My opinion : it's a natural effect of ATS members visiting and joining other boards to discuss their beloved subjects, and indicate in those forums from which forum and roots they come.

If your specific conspiracy theory is worth fighting for, you should not be afraid of this inflow from other forums, in fact it is a very healthy effect, which will give new impulses to all of us, to do our utter best to defend what we stand for.

If you can't defend your theories with substance, you should reconsider your standpoint.

reply to post by LaBTop


I think they were great questions you posed. I was very interested in the response it would get, and I agree, SO did a great job responding thoroughly.

Hopefully people will rest easier.

Carrying over to respond to points raised in this post.

If you were approached by the feds or ANY covert alphabet agency and "asked" to comply, you really would have no choice, other than to do what they said.

Yes, but the opening post asked if we were "bought out" by some unnamed government source... that's very different than asking if we simply ever complied with requests (and we outlined two such events).

You're not gunna beat them legally, and you're not gunna win in an all and all out physical brawl

Actually, it is possible, and people have done it.

the tendency by a few staff members to aggressively browbeat and/or guilt trip someone into either agreeing with them or into keeping quiet in feaqr of being banned or warned or deducted points or thought of as a bad member or something

There has been some recent attention paid to working harder to understand the rather unique relationship between staff and members here on ATS. As such, many of us (staff) have come to the conclusion that we have indeed acted with haste in several areas recently, which has resulted in posts that come of harsh in some regards. In other words, we're aware of it and working on it... essentially we've come to the realizing that at some point in the recent past, the role of staff on ATS has evolved from "simple peacekeepers" of board decorum, to stewards of an important part of people's lives. This new realization is tempering our moderation strategies.

the fact that this website considers other "truth" forums, no matter how big or small, to be "competition".

That's not the case... where did you come up with this? (curious)

"shocked and saddened" How many times have we all heard a government official spout that line, like every time something might be blamed on them, they're "shocked and saddened" all the sudden? Whoa... Skeptic, you're starting to TALK like one of those talking heads the government pays to lie to us so they don't have to. Just an observation.

Perhaps... but only in regard to the complex fictions created about me, our staff, and ATS.

the outrageous amounts of slander that goes on towards innocent members... not the average joe that posts a comment here and there... but the real heavyweights with good info or a story that really makes you think.

As has been expressed in our management style, terms & conditions, and several statements from staff, maintaining an environment of decorum with every-day social graces is the most important aspect of maintaining this community. However, given our size and activity level, it's impossible for our staff to see every post proactively. We rely on our members to alert us to such posts (as happens daily) so that we can take action. If you see something like this, PLEASE let us know about it.

We question this site because we have a right and a very real duty to question it.

If you review the history of tolerance and support of questions about us here on ATS, you'll see that we not only embrace such activity, due to our editorial neutrality and full-control given to members, such threads even become featured on the site home page. Where I often get irritated is when such questions are based on obvious lies created by people with obvious credibility issues... and those asking the "questions" have made no effort to first ensure it's a legitimate question.