Simply put...Topics that do not belong on ATS.

reply to post by blupblup


Point well taken...except that I (like many) come here for one reason and that is to take part in discussion or civil debate on the "real" issues at hand based on my interpretation and understanding of this word. Of course I do realize that this site was not made for just me. I just had to add the topics that I feel are not appropriate for the discussion here

Originally posted by alyosha1981
....when a star of film and screen dies...it's not a conspiracy Is this too complicated???

So you are saying the deaths of stage actors, for example, would still be fair game or that of other entertainment celebrities? Or do you include all celebrity deaths as topics to be excluded? And on the issue of stars of "film and screen" as you put it, would that include production people and directors, studio owners, people like Ted Turner (I know he is still alive) for example or just people like Fatty Arbuckle?

Far from being too complicated, I don't think you are being complicated enough.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Ok shro, I'll pull my "dogs" back a bit. I see that my expectations were not entirely in vain, oh boy I have just grown tired of referring people here only to have them come back and tell me that Tiger Woods interpersonal relationships do not equal a conspiracy...

Originally posted by ipsedixit


Far from being too complicated, I don't think you are being complicated enough.

Was it my short winded OP that lead you to this conclusion? Or was my point lost on you? please adjust your babel fish and then try again, or for further information you can feel free to U2U me

reply to post by alyosha1981


This is an ironic post as you've added nothing but whinning about what this site should be from personal opinion and no actual sterling content, are you staff or a member of the self appointed ats police?

Originally posted by alyosha1981
reply to post by blupblup

 

Point well taken...except that I (like many) come here for one reason and that is to take part in discussion or civil debate on the "real" issues at hand based on my interpretation and understanding of this word. Of course I do realize that this site was not made for just me. I just had to add the topics that I feel are not appropriate for the discussion here

You can still do that but unfortunately most of the "Decent" conversation has disappeared.
Sites like You tube and Facebook are where the money is and i think that ATS knows that (media portal/mutter) and are perhaps cashing in.

I don't blame them one little bit....seriously, not at all.... but it does have a detrimental effect on the original and core purpose that this site was intended for.

It's a shame.

But as i said, there are still some good threads.... but they are far outweighed by the absolute crap on here.

just gotta sift through the crap to find the gems.

Originally posted by alyosha1981
Upon a few days of reflection, I decided that it's best I keep my "mouth" shut on the concerns I have pertaining to this matter. Do I simply give up? Do I simply choose to ignore the multitude of threads that have absolutely nothing to do with the operational goals of ATS as a whole?

I have had different reasons for my "disillusionment" of ATS from time to time. Here's my advice:

Give up your attachment to what YOU think ATS should be or was meant to be.

ATS is what it is. We either choose to participate or not, but as long as you have expectations of what it should be, you're most likely going to be disappointed. Trying to get ATS to conform to suit each of our ideal discussion website is a fool's game.

What you seem to propose is a form of (self-?) censorship to suit your sensibilities. You're certainly not the first to do so. Yes I read your entire post and this is what I take away from it. If ATS suited it's content to each member, very little would be discussed here. We can't all have it our way. This is not Burger King.

If I had my way around here, statements like the following would receive editing or a warning of some kind. Because on a site of allegedly civil adults, I see no reason to spew personal attacks like this:

Originally posted by alyosha1981
Of course I could use seseme street icons to improve my point if need be

Originally posted by alyosha1981
I (like many) come here for one reason and that is to take part in discussion or civil debate on the "real" issues at hand based on my interpretation and understanding of this word.

And you are absolutely free to do that. Not to mention add to the content that which you want to see here. Be the Change You Wish to See

Originally posted by alyosha1981

Porn_
Celebrity issues-
ATS "Cheerleading"
Racial radically objective material-
Gender/transgender/gay topics-
Degrading other sites-
Conclusions.

If these thread topics were pervasive, I would think that I might have noticed. With the exception of "gender, et c.", I do not recall any recent ATS thread topics with any one of these as the subject.

Of course, it may be that I just took the practical and effective approach: I ignored them.

jw

It is not 'simply put' at all. Frankly I lost the will to live half way through and found myself instead correcting spelling mistakes - strangely at odds with such a lengthy and rather verbose dialogue. So I missed the message, I'm afraid.
Did you ever do 'precis' at school? Perhaps you could summarise your main points in a paragraph. Cheers

[edit on 6-1-2010 by unicorn1]

reply to post by alyosha1981


aly, I actually understand where your frustration is coming from, and it isn't an uncommon one for someone who has been a member here for the length of time that you have ... a threshold gets reached and patience with nonsense rises inversely proportionally to the amount of new and original information available.

It is the easy, and imo the erroneous, conclusion to always say ATS has changed ... especially when the likelihood is that through time it is us the ATS members who change through our interaction with the site.

That is not to say that the discussion doesn't have merit ... in fact it isn't a new discussion at all:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Having said all that, the line between what is "alternative" enough and what isn't is a difficult one to always get right. Staff, and rightfully so, will err on the side of leaving threads on ATS rather than moving them to BTS, we can all change that by hitting the "alert" button ... I assure you that if member consensus is that a particular topic/thread is too fluffy for ATS they will take member concerns into account.

But I urge you however to look within rather than outwards to remedy the source of your frustration. Taking a slightly less personal and more distant approach to the machinations of the board works much better than expecting the place to change to satisfy one's conceptual expectation ... at least that's what I do, and the nonsense is barely perceptible to me these days.


PS. The Britney Spears conspiracy has yet to gain the traction it deserves ... one day it will be revealed that she and Sarah Palin are one and the same person and Skyfloating shall have to eat his pointy words!


[edit on 6 Jan 2010 by schrodingers dog]

I think one of the most interesting things about ATS that I sometimes find a bit perplexing and frustrating as I imagine a few other members at least do as well is that often alternative, political and war on terror topics sometimes are used both knowingly and wittingly, and unknowingly and wittingly to actually further conspiracies.

I think Iran is a classic example of that currently. It’s no secret that the U.S. Congress allotted hundreds of millions of dollars to the Intelligence Community a couple years ago to destabilize the Iranian Regime.

By any classic definition that’s a real conspiracy on the part of the U.S. Government to alter and change the course of events inside Iran utilizing covert secret means to do so.

Every time the mainstream media or YouTube or anything publishes any thing anti-Iranian Government if it has any kind of shock value or emotional appeal it ends up here on ATS, even though often they are attributed to anonymous and unnamed sources and poorly substantiated as being genuine.

In my humble opinion there are then two kinds of members or end up posting these to start a thread. The first kind is the member who often recognizes it for what it is the kind of emotional stirring thing that will get lots of stars and flags and make for a popular thread.

The second kind of member though is what I refer to the members on a crusade, they are posting it in an attempt to shape public opinion and actually further the conspiracy. Lets for the sake of just understanding this phenomenon take whether that’s a worthy cause out of it and the right or wrong of what might or might not be happening in Iran and reserve judgment on that to understand that in many ways this is a deliberate effort to help further the conspiracy.

To me what’s especially troubling with that second kind of poster is they almost too have to be broken down into two subsets. The poster who is well intentioned and acting independently to further that conspiracy because they actually believe based on their own best knowledge it’s the right thing to do. Yet there is in my humble opinion another type of poster in that category and that is one who is actually involved in a truly organized and paid effort to further that conspiracy along by using public forums to shape public opinion to garner public support for the conspiracy.

The fact that there is a conspiracy involved becomes almost lost in the sheer emotional manipulation that they elicit in how the information is laid out and presented and most of the information is laid out and presented to evoke primarily an emotional response based on the picture being painted.

But is it an accurate picture or a picture completely contrived to gain that emotional response and manipulation and to deliberately further the conspiracy?
In many cases some members actually recognize the sometimes very dubious nature of the source and the lack of authenticity and corroboration in it. They see the potential conspiratorial elements and publicly question them, sometimes even denounce them.

Far too often though because the information is presented to appeal to emotion and intellect these members then are basically subjected to various forms of emotional inspired peer pressure to not question sources and validity and to assume that there are no conspiratorial elements. That what ever the mainstream news media says it is, it really is and you are in essence a fool and a dangerous fool for questioning that.

It’s all largely aimed at taking the conspiratorial elements out of it, and trying to stifle debate and questions to in my humble opinion further an agenda which is a conspiracy.

Often the members who fall for this emotional manipulation aren’t well versed in history or the subject matter but are simply affected by the emotional presentation of the singular incident or a combination of similar incidents that get posted sometimes several times a day.

What’s going on in Iran right now is just the most classic and obvious example but as the OP mentioned there are a number of other topics where members are really unwittingly or wittingly involved in furthering mostly political agendas that are a conspiracy unto themselves in how people are attempting to further them, often as unwitting and possibly duped pawns through emotional manipulation to win a broad war for the hearts and minds of people to support that agenda and conspiracy.

Simply put some members aren’t interested in exposing a conspiracy or debunking the notions and elements of a possible conspiracy but to actually further a conspiracy!

The members most affected and involved in this seem to not be able to tolerate any discussion of conspiracy and often skirt the T & C and often step over that line in trying to silence those that are.

I don’t know if there is a staff based or administrative solution to that but in my humble opinion forewarned is forearmed!

[edit for double post calamity]

[edit on 6 Jan 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by alyosha1981

Here's the pertinent quote from your OP:

Celebrity issues- Unless specifically stated and implicated in any manner of conspiracy to deny, justice, liberty,or the per suite of "law abiding" lives of the majority of citizens residing in the country of the story's origin, thus perpetrating a notable example of a conspiracy to take away from the "otherwise" noted person illegally, money,information,quality of life, or other negative consequences.

With all due respect, you need an editor. If people started having to consult your criteria as to what constitutes valid discussion on ATS, that would bring the site to a complete halt.

I take your point though. You did spell it out. I'll be frank with you. My gag reflex wouldn't let me actually do more than skim your OP. Read Hemingway man. Condensation and clarity.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks, for your time that is. I understand that ATS isn't a "cut to fit" site although I will argue that it has at times become a bit of a drag...I do take "ATS breaks" so that's not really a problem. I will agree somewhat to your deduced conclusion of the OP, but I think that what you've understood isn't my only point.
I'm all for "free speech" and the freedoms of opinion I just feel that ATS is becoming more and more like a social networking site.

reply to post by alyosha1981


My dear, if you don't like certain topics do what any other member that only look for "personal" high standards of posting do, ignore them.

Plain and simple . . .

Just because you don't agree with certain aspect of posting, doesn't mean that everybody else agree with you.

Originally posted by unicorn1
It is not 'simply put' at all. Frankly I lost the will to live half way through and found myself instead correcting spelling mistakes - strangely at odds with such a lengthy and rather verbose dialogue. So I missed the message, I'm afraid.
Did you ever do 'precis' at school? Perhaps you could summarise your main points in a paragraph. Cheers

[edit on 6-1-2010 by unicorn1]

Let me offer my apology for the spelling mistakes that lead to your loss of the will to live. I have sent a message to the makers of my spell checker (many four letter words included) as well as my boss that dreadfully kept me at work for 8 whole hours before allowing my to return home so that I could author a few measly paragraphs on an issue I felt the need to address. Maybe next time I'll have you proof read my post before hitting the "reply" button K

reply to post by alyosha1981

I'm going to the pub now guys. See ya later. By the way Alyosha, I love your African themed signature.

Chicken Sandwich $3.25 , Steak Sandwich $4.50, Veggie Platter $1.75
Dwight Eisienhower was an alien love child salad $9.00
Jesus drove my school bus $12.50
Coffee $1.00, Pop $1.00, Ice Cream $1.00, Hot Tea $1.00

server: will you be ordering everything from the menu today sir?

Sir: No thank you, but I'll have the the chicken sandwich, jesus drove my school bus and a coffee .....

reply to post by alyosha1981


i agree with OP 100% - i found this site, just like many others, by looking for answers. i come back to this site - looking for answers. but many of the threads are childish, many of the posts within the majority of threads are just trash. -and yes, i can ignore, not read, and not comment. but that is what i believe the OP is getting at. people come here for answers, fresh air if you will. some of us have the decency to hold our rotten breath away from other noses, what is everyone else lacking that when they are sick they must infect others?

reply to post by alyosha1981


Okay, you know about Scientology's founding father L. Ron Hubbard, right? Well, his son Quentin was gay. In Scientology, homosexuality is considered an illness, so when Quentin could not be "cured," it made ole' Ron look bad. Then Quentin committed suicide. There is some speculation that this suicide wasn't really a suicide at all, and that Ron or someone else had actually set it all up an staged it to appear as a suicide. All because Quentin was gay. I can't find the source that I read it from originally but here's another. It's a little long, but holds a pretty interesting theory that seems very appropriate for this website