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 exponent
Originally posted by maxella1
Excuse me.... I just posted a shi* load of personal attacks on a group of people you call truthers...
So report the posts, don't repost them.
Sorry for the short post.
Originally posted by maxella1
Wow. I didn't expect this when I posted this thread. You're really showing what you're made of.
Are you saying that what I posted is fake?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by maxella1
Wow. I didn't expect this when I posted this thread. You're really showing what you're made of.
Are you saying that what I posted is fake?
I'm showing what I am made of, by objecting to public slander via straw man? Oh no, please forgive me!
I'm saying every one of the fallacies in the original post are just that, absolute nonsense, used only as an excuse to attack 'the others' which are in this case 'official story' supporters.
It must be nice to live in your world, where you're always 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with you is morally wrong on many levels. Shame it's not the truth eh?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
You would have to be seriously thin-skinned to think of most of those as an insult. Mainly they just take issue with the argument, which is regularly poorly-formed, inconsistent and biased.
Note - that isn't an insult either. It is a comment on the standard of proof. An insult is, say, calling someone a shill with no evidence.
Can't think which side does more of that
Originally posted by Varemia
It's still the same thing it was the first two times. It's an effort to stereotype all people who disagree with your view of the conspiracy.
con·spir·a·cy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1.the act of conspiring.
2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
Yeah, it has become a threat to slander certain members by lumping them together and stating falsehoods about them as a group.
It is not acceptable.
Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by maxella1
The irony of being offended by 'ignorance' is not lost on me. When are you going to stop researching 'OSers' and instead research 911? Have you even read one full report from NIST yet? Have you contacted an engineering form with your concerns about Bazant's proof?
Of course you haven't. You're far too busy cherry picking quotes to make 'OSers' look bad. Should I however go and cherry pick truthers calling for murder or death or hanging, you will claim that it is unfair to lump all 'truthers' together as a group.
Which is it? Can I go and find some abhorrent truther quotes and assign them to a group that includes you? I would never do such a thing as the dishonesty is obvious. Why are you trying to do this?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by maxella1
You know what, I have decided to research OSers. Is that okay with you?
The point I'm making here is that even though you disrespect truthers on a daily basis, NOBODY is demanding that your posts be deleted.
No, it is not ok with me. It is also not ok with the rules of this forum. You may not make personal attacks.
This thread is an attempt to slander a group by using personal attacks. It's not valid, and there's a difference between disrespect and slander.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by maxella1
Excuse me.... I just posted a shi* load of personal attacks on a group of people you call truthers...
So report the posts, don't repost them.
Sorry for the short post.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by maxella1
Wow. I didn't expect this when I posted this thread. You're really showing what you're made of.
Are you saying that what I posted is fake?
I'm showing what I am made of, by objecting to public slander via straw man? Oh no, please forgive me!
I'm saying every one of the fallacies in the original post are just that, absolute nonsense, used only as an excuse to attack 'the others' which are in this case 'official story' supporters.
It must be nice to live in your world, where you're always 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with you is morally wrong on many levels. Shame it's not the truth eh?
Originally posted by kidtwist
We have read NISTs report, and we think it's a total joke. It has deliberately left out a lot of crucial information and cannot be taken seriously if there are so many elements to 9/11 that were not investigated.
they are not personal attacks, they are re-posts of your own words, as per the topic title.
How is it slander if they are words that you lot wrote yourself?
Maybe you should delete your original comments if you don't like people re-posting them?
Originally posted by maxella1
I'm wondering why did the mods removed ( posting for the third time) from the title of the thread? I don't get it. We are not allowed to remove our own posts but they can change anything they want in anybodys thread. I know it's their site and their rules and all. But Maybe somebody can explain?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by maxella1
I'm wondering why did the mods removed ( posting for the third time) from the title of the thread? I don't get it. We are not allowed to remove our own posts but they can change anything they want in anybodys thread. I know it's their site and their rules and all. But Maybe somebody can explain?
Oh, it's probably just part of some sinister secret plot to take over the world. That IS what you wanted to hear, isn't it?
The slander is the original post. The reason I object to reposting is that if I was to do it with the most abhorrent truther posts ('vicsims' anyone?) and pretend like it represented all truthers, you would call me out as some sort of charlatan. You have already objected to my use of the word 'truthers' as falsely misrepresenting a group rather than individuals, but now you have no problem with lumping your opponents together and tarring them all with the same brush?
I doubt any of my quotes have been reposted, I try and stay away from personal attacks as much as possible.