The ATS Issues Thread

I have a question about Political Trolling.

I'll be right to the point......

Is it Political Trolling to include Barack Obama's given middle name, the name on his birth certificate, in discussion of him?

A yes or no, with a simple explanation is needed, as I am totally confused on this issue.

Many Presidents, including our current one have been associated with their middle names.

I am anxiously waiting for and will abide by a final decision on this issue.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Is it Political Trolling to include Barack Obama's given middle name, the name on his birth certificate, in discussion of him?

Why would you need to do that?

(post deleted / redundant)

[edit on 22-9-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Corum
I would like to know why it was deleted, it's fair that I am given an explanation.

I did indeed provide you an explanation within minutes of your original post in this thread. Unfortunately, you seem unwilling to accept it.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
With that statement you have just proven that you did not read the marijuana thread, because if you had then you would not have made that statement.

I did indeed read the thread *AND* the discussion amongst our staff as they decided to move it to our Really Above Top Secret forum so that it be discussed, rather than delete it.

reply to post by Springer


You know, it really sucks to see this bit of animosity between Duncan and the ATS staff - and because of a Greer thing no less.

I like Duncan and I actually wish he would contribute more. He seems to know a lot of people and have a lot of experience, and those kind of people are good to have around are they not? I don't know much about Nexus, but why shouldn't different media outlets collaborate?

As for Greer, he has chosen not to involve ATS in any of his projects. Even refused interviews and put out really silly evidence to dissuade ATS from being involved.

Should we therefore just forget about scrutizining his work? Or is there more going on here than meets the eye?

Why do so many people who know Greer personally, stick up for him, like Duncan here? People who have worked with him etc?

What does Dennis Kucinich know about him? Greer claims to have briefed him....

Why did UFO Congress start putting out DVDs of his past presentations without Greer linking to them from disclosureproject.org? DVDs that supposedly contain real footage of CSETI expeditions? Are we seriously not going to even have a look at these DVDs, just because they cost like $20 each? pocket change?

I wonder what people like Bearden, and Bedini, know about Greer? The guys that have patented fuelless energy prototypes and stuff....?

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
You know, it really sucks to see this bit of animosity between Duncan and the ATS staff - and because of a Greer thing no less.

I agree. His post in this thread was honestly the first I had become aware of ill-feelings.

I have no idea why he just didn't approach me (I really only have the one email from him on July 4th).

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


That is a good question. Let me see if I can explain.

To some people Politics is something they pay attention to once every four years. I pay attention to politics every day of the year. I consider it a sport with a never ending season.

When I watch the Saints play, I don't want them to work together with the other team to ensure a good game, I want the Saints to destroy the other team ugly or not. This is how I believe politics should be. Destroy the opposition, and advance your agenda. This is why they were elected. This is my view, and lately it has been in direct conflict with ATS. I am trying to modify my political habits here, and I think I am doing a good job.

The Obama middle name issue mainly has to do with George Bush's middle name. If Dubya was accepted, why can't ******* be accepted?

I'm good with either decision on this.....but please once and for all.....Is it OK, or will it not be tolerated?





[edit on 22-9-2008 by RRconservative]

[edit on 22-9-2008 by RRconservative]

reply to post by RRconservative


My opinion only

How about: It depends on context, intent and relevance? Its easy to see if someone is emphasizing in in order to incite emotional reactions connected to popular associations with the name, or if someone is simply posting a birth certificate.

Originally posted by mikesingh
reply to post by nexusmagazine

 

It seems the bone of contention is Greer.

Just because one has interacted personally with Greer over time, doesn’t make him (Greer) what he claims to be – an authority on everything concerning the UFO phenomenon with a dash of spirituality thrown in for effect.

I have nothing against you as I don’t know you from Adam, but the amount of weight you are throwing behind him is intriguing. I had, a couple of years earlier, been a fan of sorts of Greer, but then whenever I mailed him for proof in the form of pics/vids etc, I was greeted with stony silence. No vids, no pics, no proof, no nothing – nix, nada.

So what happened to those Lilliputian aliens 10 to 15 inches tall that he claims to have met? Where are the vids/pics? I’m still waiting and it’s been more than a year! The bottom line is that he has NO proof/evidence for his extraordinary claims! PERIOD! Or have you published any in your magazine? If no, where does he stand on the credibility scale?

And then it’s getting tiring receiving emails from him to contribute to some free energy binge he’s currently on. I can name you some Indian scientists who are on the job, but aren’t begging for greenbacks like he is doing to apparently fund his business class travels to attend some tacky conferences that release nothing but the stench of a huge scam.

Now you tell me, how do you want me to rate him on the credibility scale?


[edit on 22-9-2008 by mikesingh]

In case you can't read, the bone of contention is not just Greer, it is the double-standards of ATS moderators, super-moderators and site owners on how they 'reprimand' people on side of an aggressive debate, and not the others.

If you want a debate on credibility, just look at how ATS give free radio time to Stewart Swerdlow, a convicted felon, and a pathological liar about his past, and a person who rips off little old ladys for psychic readings. Now there is a person I have had heaps of compliants about in terms of honesty, integrity and ethics.

I have not ever heard a single evidenced complaint about Dr Steven Greer from ANYONE - and I have been active in this 'field' for far longer than any of you reading this on ATS. I have personally dealt with nearly every 'big' name in the fields that Greer touches, and not one of them has a bad word to say about him.

Why the double-standards? Why, when I point out the bizarre free promotion of a total con-man, am I reprimanded and have my post removed - but anyone slagging off at Greer is protected by ATS people at the time?

And then to top it off, we get these bizarre intermediate posts from one or more of the big three, making comments that reflect that they haven't even bothered to read the posts leading up to the threads they are criticising of mine -

do you wonder why my respect for the integrity of ATS honchos is fading rapidly?

They must be laughing all the way to the bank, while their hard-working moderators are doing it all for love.

Honestly, I expected to see ATS moderators, super-moderators and owners NOT to take sides in a slanging match about the credibility of anyone - whether it is Greer or Joe Blow.

This is my last post on ATS - I'm out of here - with a very bad taste in my mouth. You can be sure that when I am networking with other key speakers, writers and researchers, that when they ask me about my experience with ATS - that I will pass on what I have personally experienced here.

Duncan

Originally posted by nexusmagazine
I have not ever heard a single evidenced complaint about Dr Steven Greer from ANYONE - and I have been active in this 'field' for far longer than any of you reading this on ATS. I have personally dealt with nearly every 'big' name in the fields that Greer touches, and not one of them has a bad word to say about him.

Duncan, please. I know you said "last post", but, if you do know people who can vouch for Greer - can you get statements from them to that affect?

Why the double-standards? Why, when I point out the bizarre free promotion of a total con-man, am I reprimanded and have my post removed - but anyone slagging off at Greer is protected by ATS people at the time?

Greer, or someone, did put up some really, laughable, evidence on cseti.org last year, Duncan. Commonly referred to as the "Mothra" incident.

It is my feeling that they did this purposely, to bias ATS against them because they do not want ATS involved in any of their projects. Others will disagree and have their own conclusions of course....

This is my last post on ATS - I'm out of here - with a very bad taste in my mouth. You can be sure that when I am networking with other key speakers, writers and researchers, that when they ask me about my experience with ATS - that I will pass on what I have personally experienced here.

I wish you wouldn't. It seems at this point like you are the only one who's angry here Duncan. The Greer thread in question wound down weeks ago.... things move very fast on ATS, emotions run high sometimes, accusations are made, fingers are pointed - and then next week it's on to something else. It's in the past already my friend....

Please stay for a while yet

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by RRconservative

 

My opinion only

How about: It depends on context, intent and relevance? Its easy to see if someone is emphasizing in in order to incite emotional reactions connected to popular associations with the name, or if someone is simply posting a birth certificate.

I find it odd that many posters on this site have not used McCain's middle name: John Sidney McCain. Yet they insist on using Obama's full name. .

The intent is quite transparent.

Hi RR,

I think like was said above, the real answer is that it's all about the context.

The problem is that people are often throwing out his name as a tactic, typically a scare tactic, to distract from real discussion.

That was part of the logic of the creation of the Bully Pulpit forum. There are so many real, important, crucial issues that the candidates differ on that we could have hundreds of threads dealing with that.

I know some people will disagree but we believe that political discussion should focus on those issues.

People know Obama's middle name is Hussein and that the name Hussein does a fine job of evoking memories of people who have not been friends of America. But if you really take a moment to think about it, is that really relevant to the voters?

To me, the fundamental issues regarding his name are pretty simple. Firstly, even if you absolutely can't stand the name because it reminds you of Saddam or whatever, keep in mind he didn't name himself.

Secondly, if one is concerned that the middle name is somehow indicative of his beliefs and ideas for this country... well, I hardly think that's fair. It reminds me of the scene in Seinfeld when Elaine was dating a guy named Joel Rifkin and they made a whole issue about it.

It's my belief and that of the Amigos and staff of ATS that there is such an abundance of issues to talk about, and that this election is so important to all of us that we shouldn't get caught up in such issues like using a candidate's middle name as a scare tactic.

Is it against the T&C to use a candidate's middle name? No...

I suppose if you're going to use all the candidates' full names, fair is fair. If it's meant to scare people or derail conversations about real issues, then yes, that would be against the T&C.

I hope that helps... I know it's not the easiest of issues.

Originally posted by RRconservative
I'm good with either decision on this.....but please once and for all.....Is it OK, or will it not be tolerated?

By your post, it's clear you seek to over-use his middle name as a deceptive attack with no basis in fact or policy. So it's very clearly not tolerated.

For those of you who don't understand how some aspects of the internet work, I'm gonna 'splain for you and make it real simple.

Some families, companies, libraries, public access points, and even some service providers block domains because of "keywords." They use web crawlers or search engines to determine which sites contain these keywords, and then they block the domains that do.

Keywords often include the names of illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, drug slang and the drug-related "vocabulary," as well as keywords associated with adult content.

So, regardless of the intent of the thread, enough web crawler/search engine hits on the name of a green smokeable plant may result in the ATS domain being blocked, thus limiting access to ATS. I have already seen people say that they can not get to ATS from work, or their local library, because of domain blocking.

R.A.T.S., on the other hand, is not searchable by web crawlers and search engines. That is why *some* drug-related topics are allowed there.

So whether or not a thread was advocating or discussing illegal use of said smokeable plant is not the issue; the issue is that the appearance of the name of the plant in the thread could cause some people to lose their access to ATS or cause ATS to show up on lists of "bad" sites, which is undesirable.

Get it, got it, now?

Originally posted by RRconservative
The Obama middle name issue mainly has to do with George Bush's middle name. If Dubya was accepted, why can't ******* be accepted

I'm feeling nosy tonight, so I'll butt in with one more point:

George W. Bush is not running for president this year. He ran for president four years ago, long before the current ATS policy was enacted. I would support your point about the use of his middle name if this was an election between Bush and Obama -- the nickname "Dubya" was (in my opinion) used as an inflammatory smear tactic against the younger Bush in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

But the new rules seem to me to be designed to lessen inflammatory rhetoric relating to the upcoming presidential election, and are not retroactive.

Originally posted by Springer

Originally posted by Corum
do thank Springer for deleting my signature today, the one I have used for so long and never had anyone have a problem with it, even mods.

You're most welcome.

I assume you wanted to thank me because I relieved you from being in direct violation of our TAC... The fact no one noticed before is moot.

How hard is it to understand we don't want drugs discussed on our site? There are thousands of sites you can have a row about all the dope in the world, just not this one. Not that complicated is it?

With all the vitriol and demanding nature of your posts may I suggest a brisk walk in the fresh air? It will do wonders for all that pent up angst you seem to be carrying around the net.

As always, I'm glad to be of service, no need to thank me.

Springer...

[edit on 9-22-2008 by Springer]

I know you must be busy too, what with judging the X-Factor and stuff (that is you isn't it? heh) but the thing that bothers me, the root of my rants, is the fact that management promote this site as a portal of free speech where the user generated content (provided by us) can flow without interference, within reason of course. It comes down to this, our content is being shaped by yourselves into what you want it to be, you are steering this site into a very specific direction, and many of us do not like it, we have a voice here yet it is edited by yourselves to keep everything looking brady bunch.

In short, please stop modding and deleting content so much, relax. You will not lose readers by letting people discuss the truth about things, no matter how sensitive those 'things' are.

reply to post by Djarums


I mentioned the problem in my last post but it seems worth expanding upon . Other topics have an end let for the man who needs to beat up a pillow . There is the Faith & Spirituality over on BTS for those who need an outlet from Conspiracy's in Religion . Other topics have less direct outlets but they can still be found . Ninety percent of the time I manage to avoid pure partisan slug feasts but I am human which means that I am fallible which means there needs to be a place where I can go and not cop a warn that other ten percent of the time .

reply to post by Djarums

The problem is that people are often throwing out his name as a tactic, typically a scare tactic, to distract from real discussion.

While I do agree with you that on this subject your right, some people on this site use scare tactics in order to promote discussion. I of course am talking about "the sky is falling" chicken little threads.

Specific examples, CERN/LHC, 2012, NWO, etc.

xpert11, it's all about presentation. A rant on some candidates middle name is hardly equitable and right to discuss. However, a diatribe of political insight researched and presented with a clear basis in fact can and should be discussed. Human or not, when you get involved in an argument based solely on a name without a rational basis for the argument it's not what this site is looking for.

A skunk by any other name would still stink. This is where gentle moderation can be used. A U2U to a member from a moderator can be less painfull than a removal of the post and a warning label applied to the member. I am pretty sure that this is done 91% of the time, the other 9%, those posts that do get the warning label attached to them, probably stem from somone not heeding the gentle U2U reminder and continuing on with their rant.

The ATS Drug Discussion Policy

Really, hasn't this dead horse been beat enough? Over and over again I read about people complaining that they can't discuss this issue on here, again and again the simple explenation is given. My word! Not only has this issue been discussed at length, this dead horse no longer resembles an animal but a thin goey paste! I would add something about putting down a smoking instrument and reading, but seriously, I think the point has already been made.

ATS has Sold Out!

Wow really? Has it? Somehow I don't have any trouble posting topics. 99.9% of my posts are all still there. (With one notable exception, which it's removal was to me pretty funny and everyone involved including me had a good laugh about it.) The point I am trying to make is, TAN LLC is a business, the are here to promote their product (your posts and threads) In this way, not only have they not sold out, they are directly in line with their origonal business plan concept. So when members complain that ATS has sold out, when in fact this is a discussion board with primarily user generated content, your complaining that the entire membership has sold out.

Originally posted by Corum
It comes down to this, our content is being shaped by yourselves into what you want it to be, you are steering this site into a very specific direction, and many of us do not like it, we have a voice here yet it is edited by yourselves to keep everything looking brady bunch.

The amount of provocative material on this website is nothing short of overwhelming. We have nearly five million posts from over 75,000 contributors on almost 400,000 topics that has resulted in just over three million pages of content. Most of our forums are focused on topics that are highly critical, if not outright accusatory, of "government" and/or "the powers that be." That's hardly a "brady bunch" topic mix.

While our Terms & Conditions are somewhat more lengthy than other boards and blogs, the intent of those rules boil down to three core concepts --
-- don't insult or flame each other
-- don't post gratuitously with vulgarities or illegal topics
-- respect the thoughts and content of others
Very simple. In fact, it could be easily argued these are the core ideals by which most of us should be interacting with people in real life, so there's no reason not to be the same online.

Many people have a strong desire to let loose with rude behavior when online... so much so that the anonymity of boards and blogs have fostered a habit of rudeness and predilection for flaming. We simply won't have that here. Call it what you like -- "brady bunch" or "disney" or "sanitized" or whatever -- we tend to call it normal civilized behavior. In the four years since we became serious about these rules, we've grown from literally an unknown, to the largest and most popular site of our type... with the one primary change sparking that growth being our rules of decorum. Clearly, many people appreciate such rules.

In short, please stop modding and deleting content so much, relax. You will not lose readers by letting people discuss the truth about things, no matter how sensitive those 'things' are.

There are only a small handful of topics that are subject to removal -- drugs, sex, overt recruitment, spamming, intense violence -- generally, all items that most people avoid anyway when in mixed company. Beyond those subjects, all topics are wide open for passionate, honest, and intense discussion within normal expectations of civil behavior.

Originally posted by Heike
For those of you who don't understand how some aspects of the internet work, I'm gonna 'splain for you and make it real simple

Thanks for clearing that up. I posted something that intended no harm, but it was moved to rats, and I couldn't understand why. It makes a lot of sense now. Thanks again