Why are there so many Masons on ATS?

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
These are separate independent bodies and neither has power over the other.

With such certainty you speak.

Perhaps then, you might offer up your speculation as to why the regional ruling bodies are not attempting to assuage the fears of us poor misguided, but apparently vocal, conspiracy theorists.

Uh-oh, someones upset that the masons are here to debunk him

So then, are we to assume by your words that there is indeed an alliance of masons here on ATS to "debunk"?

You are aware, I hope, of the multi-faceted meaning the word "debunk" may take? Let me offer one key definition for you -- reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Perhaps the moderation staff may need to give closer attention to your actions?

Just ignore the facts and accuse those evil old masons of ganging up on you and stalking you while you make up anything and everything to hide yourself from the truth

I have never "made up anything", nor have I a history of avoiding truth.

Originally posted by trueforger
"Hele means many things",such as..???

In some places it means to hide (another form of conceal). With dogs you use it as a command to follow the caller; to put under control.

Originally posted by trueforger
You gotta be kidding yourself if you think I will accept the statement that Masons don't drink,nothing smells like booze and I have smelled it lots of times on the breath of this and other persons after masonic functions.And he's not a liar,nor am I.

I didn't say Masons don't drink, but not in Lodge. After every meeting (unless I work the next day) I go out and have some drinks. Even at my most intoxicated state I have never given out secrets. You can tell me all you want, but you are not a member of the Fraternity so it is meaningless.

Originally posted by trueforger
We had a misfortunate crash of Shriners at a parade,where a couple of those little cars crashed into a girl,I was right there and helped at the scene to pull the car off and the driver was definitely drinking and it was a scandal because he was going to not be charged!!Only in Madison,the outcry got the attention required to put a stop to that.

I can't speak for this Shriner other than he should reprimanded for DUI if this did indeed occur. In the Shriners you can drink, but not in Lodge. You have to realize that the Shriners is a concordant body, a branch, of the Freemasons.

Originally posted by trueforger
And it is already well known that Skull & Bones is closely tied to your group through cross memberships and the similarities speak for themselves.Hele indeed.

Could you please show me these cross memberships and similarities?

Originally posted by trueforger
PS I dare you to say anything truthful (and bad)about the massive failures of Cheney and Co. mentioning Bush by name.

Technically, I can get into trouble by badmouthing Bush...I am a soldier.

How about you tell me what their failures were and I'll tell you if I agree with them.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Because there is no such thing as "Masonic governance" in the sense of an over-arching body that oversees and directs Freemasonry world-wide.

I believe you may be mistaken --

The United Grand Lodge of England
"The United Grand Lodge of England is the governing body of Freemasonry in England, Wales and the Channel Islands."

The Supreme Council Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite
The House of the Temple, headquarters of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in the Southern Jurisdiction, is located in Washington, D.C

-- here you see at least two clear examples of "governing bodies."

As LLM has already pointed out, you give national bodies international influence that they just don't have. UGLE is relevant in the British Isles and the British Isles alone. Doesn't factor-in to any Province in Canada or state in the U.S. whose Grand Lodges are on a par with the UGLE. Ditto the Southern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite which isn't relevant in Canada or the British Isles (or anywhere else in the world for that matter).

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Wanna guess what the operative word in that sentence?

If you would be so kind as to provide elucidation.

The original quote from this post was

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Masonic involvement in nefarious deeds of the ultra-wealthy and upper-tier persons in governments have been speculated upon for decades by inquiring minds.

Operative word? "Speculated". "Decades" also underlines the apparent futility and lack of evidence derived thus far.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Out of some six billion people on the planet, that means that (at best) 0.000016665% of the world's population are "conspiracy-minded people".

Could you explain your math? And, if such is the case, why waste your time here arguing with such a small and insignificant segment?

Quite simple and giving your position the benefit of the best possible numerical position from your own post

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Certainly, there is no secret as to the points of view of hundreds, if not thousands of vocal conspiracy-minded people.

So, taking "thousands" to be at most 99,999 (otherwise hundreds of thousands would've been the phrase to use), divide that by 6,000,000,000 (rough population of the Earth last I paid attention), and you get the figure I posted. A quick glance at Wikipedia puts the present estimated population of the Earth at about 6.7 billion which would put the percentage as 0.000014925223% of the world's population.

As for why "waste" my time? Let's just say that little lies left unchecked have a way of becoming large lies accepted as conventional wisdom.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
The information is there. If conspiracy theorists want to believe something different, there's precious little difference that any kind of "official" statement would make.

Are you referring to the all-too-often combative and argumentative contributions by anonymous individuals with pithy pseudonyms who appear to be stalking conspiracy theory discussions and ganging up on those who would theorize as to the apparent cause of masonic involvement in troubling global events throughout history?

Hardly authoritative, no?

I'm referring to the self-evident fact that there's a coterie of people who'll believe what they choose to believe, fact and common sense notwithstanding and no amount of "official" involvement will disabuse them of their position.

Nothing more, nothing less

And if addressing and pointing out half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies amounts to "ganging up" in your lexicon, then I suppose I must be guilty as charged.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
Uh-oh, someones upset that the masons are here to debunk him

So then, are we to assume by your words that there is indeed an alliance of masons here on ATS to "debunk"?

No more than a reasonable person would assume that there's an alliance of anti-Masons here on ATS to stir-up trouble on the SS board.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
With such certainty you speak.

The facts do indeed lend themselves to certainty. That is sort of how the truth works.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Perhaps then, you might offer up your speculation as to why the regional ruling bodies are not attempting to assuage the fears of us poor misguided, but apparently vocal, conspiracy theorists.

Because anything that is done will make you believe in a conspiracy. If the organization is silent, its proof of a conspiracy. If the organization is vocal in debunking you, its a conspiracy. There is no way to win, so the organization does nothing. The members, however, have offered all the facts, research, and evidence you could ever need to debunk anti-mason conspiracy theories.

But no one ever bothers to read them, of course.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
So then, are we to assume by your words that there is indeed an alliance of masons here on ATS to "debunk"?

Thanks for stuffing words in my mouth but no, **I** am here to debunk - at least when I post on this particular board. I post else where on the board whenever something interests me. There is no alliance needed, and other masons on here can do whatever they want. Some masons post exclusively on other boards and never on this one, others post exclusively on here and never on any of the other ones.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
You are aware, I hope, of the multi-faceted meaning the word "debunk" may take? Let me offer one key definition for you -- reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

You would search every dictionary on the planet to find one that suits your needs to stuff words and spin something I never said, wouldn't you?

Lets look at the real definition:

de⋅bunk    /dɪˈbʌŋk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-buhngk] Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object) to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Perhaps the moderation staff may need to give closer attention to your actions?

Yes, I think the moderators need to give much closer attention to your actions. With your attempts to completely spin everything and blatantly lie as you see fit, you probably are up to something.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
I have never "made up anything", nor have I a history of avoiding truth.

Actually yes, yes you did. See above.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
No more than a reasonable person would assume that there's an alliance of anti-Masons here on ATS to stir-up trouble on the SS board.

Apparently you have limited understanding of the intent of a genre-specific bulletin board system such as what is represented by ATS. It is my understanding that the intent of the existence of this web site's genre-focus is to examine information related to conspiracy theories and scandals on a wide range of subjects -- of which "secret societies" is a valid and supported subject -- of which "Masonic" influence throughout history is a valid subset.

Given the stated environment, and the easily discoverable history of concerns over masonic influence, it's unreasonable to assume that those contributing an opinion contrary to yours are engaged in an alliance.

On the other hand, to the outside observer (of which I am, having rarely contributed to masonic topics prior to this) it appears there is an alliance of "debunkers" focused on disrupting what is a stated purpose of a portion of this web site. Indeed, we see the same characters, time and time again, stepping in to deflect and disrupt discussion of the stated topic and purpose presented here. In my habitual yearnings for discoveries of truths, that is what gained my attention -- not masonic conspiracies.

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
Thanks for stuffing words in my mouth

No words were stuffed in the least. you opted to use the plural, not I.

You would search every dictionary on the planet to find one that suits your needs to stuff words and spin something I never said, wouldn't you?

Not at all. The adversarial connotation/usage of the word "debunk" is rather well known to anyone familiar with the english language.



The fact remains. A handful of regular characters associated with one particular narrow point of view are consistently observed seeking to disrupt valid topics here on this web site. Clearly, anti-social and inappropriate.

If you prefer to remain in denial over the clear evidence that many high profile persons who are named in a wide range of conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts are masons, there is nothing that will sway you.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
No more than a reasonable person would assume that there's an alliance of anti-Masons here on ATS to stir-up trouble on the SS board.

Apparently you have limited understanding of the intent of a genre-specific bulletin board system such as what is represented by ATS.

Please try not to be insulting. I didn't stoop to insulting you; I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same in return.

As for the rest of your post, I think everyone's full well aware of ATS's focus and I don't think anybody's posited that Freemasonry doesn't fit the mandate of the SS forum. But how exactly does this relate to the post of yours that I commented on unless you're asserting that I am in league with LLM, Trinityman, Augustus et al to at every turn thwart investigation of Freemasonry? Are you asserting that?

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Given the stated environment, and the easily discoverable history of concerns over masonic influence,

Which you in your own words earlier qualified as 'speculation'

Originally posted by mister.old.school
it's unreasonable to assume that those contributing an opinion contrary to yours are engaged in an alliance.

Sorry, but that argument cuts both ways. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that the self-acknowledged Masons here are actually being more upfront in pointing out their membership. Those contrary? What proof is there that there isn't an organised alliance at play there? With a binding modus operandi not immediately evident to the casual observer? None if down that particular rabbit hole you want to go.

And how do the likes of RuneSpider fit into this millieu? He's been accused I-don't-know-how-many-times of being a Freemason for not posting in lockstep with anti-Mason posters. This despite repeatedly saying he's not a Mason.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
On the other hand, to the outside observer (of which I am, having rarely contributed to masonic topics prior to this) it appears there is an alliance of "debunkers" focused on disrupting what is a stated purpose of a portion of this web site.

Please explain to me how you get from disagreement to disruption? I just don't see how you make that leap.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Indeed, we see the same characters, time and time again, stepping in to deflect and disrupt discussion of the stated topic and purpose presented here.

In my time here, my personal experience has yielded that those doing the deflecting and disrupting are not usually Masons. Again, that's predicated on the understanding that disagreement, deflection and disruption are not synonyms.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
If you prefer to remain in denial over the clear evidence that many high profile persons who are named in a wide range of conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts are masons, there is nothing that will sway you.

Help me out here. In this post, you speak of decades of speculation. Now in the course of a little over 13 hours, you're speaking of "clear evidence".

What led to your conversion on the road to Damascus?

Originally posted by mister.old.school
No words were stuffed in the least. you opted to use the plural, not I.

Quite wrong, as usual.You scoured the internet to look for the most negative definition possible in order to properly spin and stuff words to fit your purposes.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Not at all. The adversarial connotation/usage of the word "debunk" is rather well known to anyone familiar with the english language.

I'm afraid I've already debunked you on this - as the REAL definition of debunk says, not what you would like it to say.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
The fact remains. A handful of regular characters associated with one particular narrow point of view are consistently observed seeking to disrupt valid topics here on this web site. Clearly, anti-social and inappropriate.

Indeed, the fact does remain that a handful of regular characters like you are associated with one narrow point of view and are consistently observed disrupting valid topics on this website. Clearly, anti-social and inappropriate.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
If you prefer to remain in denial over the clear evidence that many high profile persons who are named in a wide range of conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts are masons, there is nothing that will sway you.

If you prefer to make up imaginary enemies to explain why you are incapable of doing anything but stalk and harass masons, that is your fault. The evidence is quite clear that there is no evidence that there are any "high profile persons" involved in conspiracy theories that are masons, and no facts will sway you from your lies.

Thank you for your responses, they have been highly illuminating.

It is clear by your (and your friend's) responses here, and your (and your friend's) obstinate stance in other topics, that there is no hope of productive dialogue.

I wish you luck in your crusade.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Thank you for your responses, they have been highly illuminating.

It is clear by your (and your friend's) responses here, and your (and your friend's) obstinate stance in other topics, that there is no hope of productive dialogue.

I wish you luck in your crusade.

Honestly, you confuse me. You go on mini-rants on threads like this and are acting extremely angry and enraged, and yet you post perfectly reasonable and respectable posts in threads like this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I could insult you back as you have insulted me and everyone else in this thread, but that really isn't productive. This is ATS and its perfectly reasonable to think masons or anyone else is involved in a conspiracy given the environment the site promotes, and you have shown you can do that without being rude and condescending where you castigate and insult everyone. Then you post things like the link above. Like I said, its confusing.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by LowLevelMason]

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Thank you for your responses, they have been highly illuminating.

It is clear by your (and your friend's) responses here, and your (and your friend's) obstinate stance in other topics, that there is no hope of productive dialogue.

I wish you luck in your crusade.

Sorry you feel that way. You've been politely asked repeatedly for clarification of assertions you've made in your posts on this thread. Where you see obstinance, others would see a sincere request for clarification so no misunderstanding gets embedded.

Sorry you feel differently

Originally posted by mister.old.school

However, one notion continues to surprise me and has surprised me throughout the years -- why has there been no effort from Masonic governance to proactively redress what the "ATS Masons" believe are misconceptions?

A possibility only:

Because the organization benefits from the press, even if its bad press. Without it, it may have sunken into obscurity.


[edit on 19-1-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by KSigMason

Thanks for the reply.So you said "hele" means "many things",you have reiterated the one that is typically found.And embellished with a misnomer,confusing the dog command,"Heel" with the Masonic code word,"HELE".Why not add,"Heal" as well?But my point still stands,Hele has no other use other than the oft repeated Masonic code of Omerta,"Hele,conceal and not reveal"You've prob. said it a hundred times and more.Do you make other oaths the words of which are so obscure there is controversy even among the insiders as to pronounciation?
And I was in no way surprised at the inability to speak truthfully of Bush due to military constraints.Tell you what,in two days he(it)won't be the POTUS will he?Then you may speak.If you read the rant of Keith Oberman he sums it up pretty well with about a hundred points of Bush-darkness.
And I won't reveal who told me these and many other things,in keeping my word.I will say I am a Lewis,but it wasn't dear old dad,he's a drinker and can hold it as a good Mason,he never drank to (his)excess.I am referring to a one who usually does not drink,so any alcohol past one drink was too many.Generational Masons leak stuff,whether by practicing their lines with you,leaving books where they may be found,or simply telling you tid bits to entice you to join.And in business you see alot.Like the UFO sighting,once you have one no amount of hele conceal never reveal will dissuade you from knowing what your own eyes saw.
I will look up and post names across membership,Bush related,in a couple days and then you may speak up on Bush without Military encumbrence excuse/rationalization.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
A possibility only:

Because the organization benefits from the press, even if its bad press. Without it, it may have sunken into obscurity.

I doubt it, Skyfloating. Individuals may pursue the "I don't care what they say about me so long as they spell my name right" approach but established organisations quail at bad press. That's goes doubly so for groups whose stated purpose is "Making good men better". Bad press reflects badly at best and at worst could attract the interest of those whose actions'd only contribute additional bad press.

Freemasonry just didn't fit in with the Boomer ethos and so functionally skipped a generation. However, I'm noticing that in conversation with Masons from my district (Toronto West) and other districts that there's a resurgence of interest in the fraternity in the last decade. This is an urban/suburban area where there's plenty of social outlets to be pursued if its sociability that one's looking for.

Personally, I think it's because society as a whole is turning back outward after being inward-focused for much of the last quarter-century. JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you..." speech seems to be resonant with society as a whole again and I think that that's also stirred up interest in groups that are focused on the improvement of society (of which Freemasonry is but one).

My take on things only. YMMV.
Fitz

On the other hand, maybe they do counter it...through unofficial channels...

www.masonicinfo.com

Originally posted by Skyfloating
On the other hand, maybe they do counter it...through unofficial channels...

www.masonicinfo.com

Yeah, but that's kind of a passive response especially if you're trying to counter a negative impression. I mean, that's great so long as you have someone who's seeking. But I think the dynamic too often is 'disprove the negative' which you well know is a mug's game.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
But how exactly does this relate to the post of yours that I commented on unless you're asserting that I am in league with LLM, Trinityman, Augustus et al to at every turn thwart investigation of Freemasonry? Are you asserting that?

(awakens from gentle slumber) Eh? Huh? What was that? Someone mention my name?

Originally posted by mister.old.school
However, one notion continues to surprise me and has surprised me throughout the years -- why has there been no effort from Masonic governance to proactively redress what the "ATS Masons" believe are misconceptions?

It's a reasonable question. Grand Lodges for many years have traditionally "taken the high road" and ignored criticisms of freemasonry on the basis that it sees no point in lowering itself to deal with such matters. These days, particularly with the Information Revolution now taking place many freemasons see this passivae approach as counter-productive and have personally gotten involved in countering misconceptions about the Craft. You will find some of this people on this site.

But of course Grand Lodges are comprised of individual freemasons, and so the organizations themselves are starting to take a more active role in disseminating information about freemasonry. While I don't expect to see any Grand Officers posting in their official capacity on ATS, Grand Lodges and other masonic organizations have produced some excellent websites choc-full of facts and information about freemasonry.

Two in particular jump out as worth a visit - the UGLE site (which you have already found) has some excellent information, and is highly credible as the UGLE is widely regarded as the most senior of all craft Grand Lodges. Also visit the Grand Lodge of BC and Yukon site - a huge amount of information is available there.

While I would be the first to admit that not all freemasons posting on ATS have had their "passions and prejudices coincide with the just line of their conduct", by far the majority keep their frustrations in check and post factual answers to questions raised.

You ask good questions and are clearly not a troll. If there is anything else you would like to know or discuss please ask.

Originally posted by Trinityman
You ask good questions and are clearly not a troll. If there is anything else you would like to know or discuss please ask.

Thank you for your level-headed input. I believe that I (personally) have a solid understanding of Freemasonry's place/role in history --
(*) the ultra-secrecy of past centuries tended to breed individual masons of ill-repute
(*) some masonic ideals have been subjugated and twisted for wrong-doing
(*) some contemporary masons are "bad people", most are not
-- as is the case to be made for nearly any group/creed/religion surviving several centuries of history.

Where I personally have issue is with the definitive mindset of this-way-and-only-this-way thinking of those involved in this (and other) discussions. Not since the "big-bang" of creation has there ever existed a black-and-white explanation for anything involving humanity.

Those engaged in sober and serious examination of contemporary and historic conspiracy theories encounter masonic influences from time to time. Upon closer inspection, this almost always is attributed to a rogue individual behaving improperly. This brings us to two statements of truth that many seem unable to swallow:
1 - there are rogue masons who improperly interpret the ideals of their brotherhood
2 - the existence of rogue masons does not mean Freemasonry is an evil society

The extremist mason-defenders seem unable to tolerate #1.

The extremist conspiracy theorist also seem unable to tolerate #2.

And between the two, few shall meet.