All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Information

Alright. I have to put my two cents in...

Thank you moderators. This was needed very very much.

The beginning of the end.

I hope this works for the 911 forum. I have steered away from it due to a couple of constant posters that, quite frankly ruin every thread all day long, in my opinion. I don't know that it will change though, the forum, because those posters, are not usually the ones that call people shills or names, (they get called it alot though) but do definitely have a way of scaring everyone off with their debating tactics.

For freedom of speech, I guess we all have to tolerate what we suspect are those that are paid to speak, that, and we can't prove it.

I do think the page holder for the forum right now is very biased. I don't know what happened recently, but no matter, it seems that one side of the conspiracy is being blamed. I can tell you, I don't go and hang out at other 911 sites, but I might visit them from a link to get the topic info, so I don't believe other outside groups are winning customers,for customer sake.

reply to post by VeniVidi


god gave me this mouth and boy can i use it to express my freedom of speech maybe were all blessed i am dyslexic

Wow - just wow! I really don't understand why so many people are so up in arms and saying that this is the "beginning of the end" and other such things. Really? It's the beginning of the end because people are not allowed to resort to name calling? Realistically, name calling is what happens when someone is losing an argument. There have been a few things that make me facepalm on this website, but to be so upset because you are told that you must be civil and not call people names is truly baffling to me.

Why, if someone disagrees with your opinion, must they be getting a paycheck for it?

I really don't visit the 9/11 forums because I see it as pointless. No one "side" is going to convince the other "side" in my opinion. Plus my beliefs are somewhat in the middle, so I guess both "sides" would accuse me of being paid anyway.

Like others have already said - if this decision makes ATS to much of a "fascist dictatorship" for you, then please feel free to not visit the website anymore.

reply to post by tallcool1

I think you would need to frequent the 911 threads to understand why this happened.

There is a general script that runs there that has gotten old and univiting.

I have a few questions....

#1 How many times can you say "crazy conspiracy sites" and "laser beams from outer space" before it's considered trolling or spamming?

#2 How many times can you refer to a person you disagree with as a "truther" or having "truther logic" before it's considered an ad hominem attack?

You would have to be completely blind to not recognize what a handful of OS supporters have done to this place in the last couple of years.

Most people who have made a strong case against the OS have already moved on from this insanity already. So, all you have is new people coming into this disscussion of 911 who won't be able to start a thread or participate and a handful of serial debunkers who will have free will because they have thousands of posts.

Great job, keep up the good work ATS!

reply to post by tallcool1




Asking people to actually read and comprehend what SO wrote or the follow along context of this thread is beyond some members abilities apparently. No wonder there is so much animosity here sometimes.


Asking people to be more respectful of others opinions and quit with the name calling equals "The End"

Man.........

reply to post by curious_soul

#1 How many times can you say "crazy conspiracy sites" and "laser beams from outer space" before it's considered trolling or spamming?

I believe its "damned fool conspiracy web sites".

I stopped posting in 9/11 threads a long time ago for similar reasons, however, I see that under new rules, I would not be allowed to start a new thread in the 9/11 forum because my WATS number is only 3? I don't even know how to raise that number and I don't post a whole lot on here, but I've never even gotten a warning on this forum before.

Considering some people don't post a whole lot on here and may not have a W rating of 10, isn't that a little unfair to those people especially ones who do not cause trouble on this site?

reply to post by curious_soul



Read this THREAD, It might answer some of your questions.

Originally posted by yourignoranceisbliss

Originally posted by flexy123
>>
How much longer before the admins ban ALL unpopular opinion?
>>
You are entirely wrong.

This is how i understand the rules.

This is exactly the type of hivemind collusion to squash questioning dissent that has lead to the downfall of this website.

The "downfall" of this site is not coming from *disallowing* troll posts. There is absolutely nothing wrong if the owners here impose stricter rules, for the purpose of BETTER and more constructive threads. THIS is was this site is lacking recently.

Originally posted by curious_soul
You would have to be completely blind to not recognize what a handful of OS supporters(wether they're paid disinfo or just completely psychotic) have done to this place in the last couple of years.

Thanks for the example of how not to participate moving forward. That sort of rhetoric right there will provide a one-way ticket off the site if used in the 9-11 forum.

Originally posted by TWILITE22

Originally posted by swoopaloop
What if a poster is in fact a shill? As in evidence proves that they're a poster who is getting paid to spread false information. These people do exist, and do post on this forum. What are you doing about them?

It's the same group of people that post in 911 threads,by the time I get through the first page it's the same tactics,derailing,and name calling and I click out...Ground hog day anyone?

Have you noticed as of this post(I haven't gone through the whole thread) they have'nt replied in this thread?

You make an assumption and then say you haven't looked through the whole thread

So who exactly is they underlined above

Originally posted by curious_soul
I have a few questions....

#1 How many times can you say "crazy conspiracy sites" and "laser beams from outer space" before it's considered trolling or spamming?

#2 How many times can you refer to a person you disagree with as a "truther" or having "truther logic" before it's considered an ad hominem attack?

I think that's getting a little on the subjective side. Whether you want to accept it or not, there are in fact people posting to the 9/11 forum who subscribe to Judy Wood's theory and they have every right to discuss their claims just as anyone else does, so if you think referring to their theory as "Lasers from outer space" is trolling or spamming, then what politically correct method do you suggest we use to reference the theory by instead? We can't just say it's "theory number four".

You would have to be completely blind to not recognize what a handful of OS supporters(wether they're paid disinfo or just completely psychotic) have done to this place in the last couple of years.

...so you don't think calling people who don't agree with what you yourself want to believe "completely blind" is an ad hominim attack?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hey Dave I didn't recognize you with your new Riding the Magic Dragon avatar.

I think that's getting a little on the subjective side. Whether you want to accept it or not, there are in fact people posting to the 9/11 forum who subscribe to Judy Wood's theory and they have every right to discuss their claims just as anyone else does, so if you think referring to their theory as "Lasers from outer space" is trolling or spamming, then what politically correct method do you suggest we use to reference the theory by instead? We can't just say it's "theory number four".

Here's a suggestion- don't bring it up if nobody is talking about lasers from space in that particular thread.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by curious_soul
I have a few questions....

#1 How many times can you say "crazy conspiracy sites" and "laser beams from outer space" before it's considered trolling or spamming?

#2 How many times can you refer to a person you disagree with as a "truther" or having "truther logic" before it's considered an ad hominem attack?

I think that's getting a little on the subjective side. Whether you want to accept it or not, there are in fact people posting to the 9/11 forum who subscribe to Judy Wood's theory and they have every right to discuss their claims just as anyone else does, so if you think referring to their theory as "Lasers from outer space" is trolling or spamming, then what politically correct method do you suggest we use to reference the theory by instead? We can't just say it's "theory number four".

You would have to be completely blind to not recognize what a handful of OS supporters(wether they're paid disinfo or just completely psychotic) have done to this place in the last couple of years.

...so you don't think calling people who don't agree with what you yourself want to believe "completely blind" is an ad hominim attack?

First, i edited my original post. It was inappropiate.

-Dave, Judy Wood has NEVER said a laser beam vaporized the towers. That's all i'm saying and this isn't the place for discussion of JW.

-When i said "blind" i wasn't referring to a disagreement of 911. What i was implying wether intentional or not is a level of disrespect has been ALLOWED towards people against the OS. IMO there would be no need for this thread and change in policy concerning the 911 forum if the rules that already existed would have been inforced. Something lead to all of this?

Anyway, the only reason i replied is i think this is a bad idea for people who are just starting to look ino 911. It's already effectively killled the 911 forum. I think a no tolerance rule for disrespect would have been better for the board.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Hey Dave I didn't recognize you with your new Riding the Magic Dragon avatar.

Yeah I was starting to get "Avatar Envy" from seeing all the other nifty avatars here so I spiffed it up. It stands out WAY more now. Not sure if that's going to be a good thing or bad thing...

Here's a suggestion- don't bring it up if nobody is talking about lasers from space in that particular thread.

So that brings up another question- If I'm addressing someone's post who actually is talking about lasers from outer space, is referencing "secret controlled demolitions" equally considered spamming and trolling? Why or why not?

It sounds to me like you're simply trying to enact your own censorship against politically incorrect conspiracy theories, here.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

It sounds to me like you're simply trying to enact your own censorship against politically incorrect conspiracy theories, here.

You know better then that Dave.. I'm against any kind of censorship. If you're replying to a post regarding space lasers then you should call it "space lasers". But you know that you inject that into almost every single thread regardless if that theory is being discussed or not.

I don't get offended by anything said here. I even named a thread with one of your favorite phrases.

Originally posted by curious_soul
-When i said "blind" i wasn't referring to a disagreement of 911. What i was implying wether intentional or not is a level of disrespect has been ALLOWED towards people against the OS. IMO there would be no need for this thread and change in policy concerning the 911 forum if the rules that already existed would have been inforced. Something lead to all of this?

I don't know. The pop up graphic said a bunch of members from pilots from 9/11 Truth were repeatedly trolling there and making a mockery out of the place, but I suspect that was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back that kicked off the house cleaning house. The disrespect you're referring to was still one of the straws.

Anyway, the only reason i replied is i think this is a bad idea for people who are just starting to look ino 911. It's already effectively killled the 911 forum. I think a no tolerance rule for disrespect would have been better for the board.

Now here, I do see your point. You're right, it doesn't exactly encourage people to get interested in posting there when they don't even know how to get these 10 WATS points. Heck, I have over 50 WATS points and I don't even know how I got them myself. I'm hoping that rule is going to be just an experiement until things settle down.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by tallcool1

 

I think you would need to frequent the 911 threads to understand why this happened.

There is a general script that runs there that has gotten old and univiting.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I do understand why this happened. What I don't understand is why people are so upset that thay can't resort to name calling and rudeness anymore.