All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Information

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
What about calling people 'truthers'? Members find that equally offensive as being called a 'shill'.

Can we have some equal rules please, otherwise it just seems 'OS'ers' are getting special treatment.

Believing in the OS doesn't mean your a shill or disinfo agent, if you dont believe the OS guess what you are

No, you are correct, but acting in a way that is obvious you have no interest in finding the truth, and every interest in painting a certain picture to protect the OS is very suspicious.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
Man, that is some record, 50 posts a day for 4 years. congratulations, you win an olympic medal for that contribution.

Thank you and about 99.99999% of those have nothing to do with the 9/11 forum

Ha, that would be like the whole 9/11 forum!

Originally posted by davidmann

I cannot hope to keep up with your prodigious output, but here's another post, from me.

It's not the end.

It is the signal, the cue, for a fresh spate of falsies.

WHY IS THIS MAN DRIVING=NEW FALSE FLAG TERROR ACTIVITY

Now sit back and enjoy the show, maybe think of kinder, gentler machine gun hands, caressing us back from emotional trauma. But no rough stuff, eh?

Okay....

Maybe, these types of responses are the reasons why I never really participate in the 9/11 forums?

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
Ha, that would be like the whole 9/11 forum!

I've toyed with the idea and have been asked numerous times to write a 9/11 thread and possibly some day I will write that thread on the topic. If I do someday write it I'll guarantee you I'd piss off both sides while pointing out massive inconsistencies and regurgitated fallacies in both sides arguments while still brutally questioning the OS.

In the meantime, my interests are elsewhere.
Feel free to read through the links provided in my signature



PEACE

Denying the truth back at you!

If being passionate about believing in the OS puts a person under suspsion of being a shill, then the equally passionate "truthers" should be under equal suspicion of being a conspiracy nut -- or maybe someone who peddles quack conspiracy theories for profit, or even worse.




EDIT TO ADD:
Sorry for the long quote S.O. -- I must have forgot to trim out the unneeded parts

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Guilty as charged. I firmly believe my ex-mother in law is Dick Cheney in disguise.

CJ

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by davidmann

I cannot hope to keep up with your prodigious output, but here's another post, from me.

It's not the end.

It is the signal, the cue, for a fresh spate of falsies.

WHY IS THIS MAN DRIVING=NEW FALSE FLAG TERROR ACTIVITY

Now sit back and enjoy the show, maybe think of kinder, gentler machine gun hands, caressing us back from emotional trauma. But no rough stuff, eh?

Okay....

Maybe, these are the types of responses are the reasons why I never really participate in the 9/11 forums?

Oh, I thought everyone was familiar with the WHY IS THIS MAN DRIVING story. It was the headline in the Chicago Sun Times, on the day of the drone strike at the asbestos site. I'll dig it out and load my very first picture. It shows a blow up of a guy who tried to drive his motor vehicle, but without a valid license to do so. The cops dug into his junk and pre-empted his attempt to violate the law.

I threw away all the [HOAX] material published over the next decade, about 911 and Muslim fanatics, but I absolutely kept the WHY IS THIS MAN DRIVING story, because I was bent on keeping it three hours before the false flag was conducted. It spoke to me. It smelled rotten, and three hours later, bam. Therefore I am expecting something new, since the news is so slow, and since I can't say 'shill' anymore.

I tossed in a little dialog from Taxi Driver, because it's appropriate. You remember this?

You can xxxx her up the xxx, xxxx in her mouth, xxxx on her face, pull her hair, but no rough stuff, eh?

spoken by sport, the pimp, played by Harvey Keitel

That's what this feels like.

ETA that a crushing blow's been dealt to the annals of my hard files. I cannot at the present locate the WHY WAS THIS MAN DRIVING headline, as well as a paper showing bono assuring another rock star, that he felt U2 did deserve the best album award that year, because U2 had missed getting the prize on two of their prior releases.

Bono assured Kayne that next year, the best album would go to him.

These were set-in-stone truths reported by the Amerikan media, which influenced our lives, all of us. Now it's lost, perhaps to be [HOAX]ed, and we're left with abiding with agents who are protected against suspicion, just because there are still so many stories being printed, to make it commercially viable.

More news: the printed U2/bono ego study has been found. I will necessarily attempt a thread on the medical condition. All hope is not lost, we may still get to the truth on this pressing matter. ALL truth is useful. [HOAX]es, are not.

WHY IS THIS MAN DRIVING may be in storage. I know, at least, that hundreds of thousands of copies were circulated, so I am confident we can get to the bottom of why this man was driving.

reply to post by DeeKlassified

No, you are correct, but acting in a way that is obvious you have no interest in finding the truth, and every interest in painting a certain picture to protect the OS is very suspicious.

But that can be said for many topics.
Take the existance of god for example.
You are not likely to shake either sides conviction. But you just don't call them shills.
Shill comes across as a derogitory term.

My personal opinion about shills are this.
Companies do employee people to talk up their goods or services. Or to do damage control to specific complaints.
But I don't believe 911 has shills because of so many different companies and agencies and theories involved.

I'd still like a hard confirmation one way or the other as to whether the terms truther and OSer is acceptable .

Hmm, so no one has an answer to my question? How does one raise their "WATS" rating and does that mean that long term users of this site like myself who don't cause problems (five years now), but also don't post often or start many threads (I've only done one) are not allowed to start threads in the 9/11 forum because my WATS rating is only three?

How does one raise that rating and is this policy being fair to "lurkers" shall I say who are occasionally only posters that do not accumulate "stats" very quickly? I feel like even though I've caused no problems on this site, not even in heated discussions in 9/11 forums and have used this site without issue for five years that now I somehow have to "earn" the right to start a thread in this forum if I so choose? I think your policy could use a bit of a tweak because that doesn't really seem fair to me.

Just for the record, I've never called anyone a "shill" or "disinfo agent" and find it pretty ridiculous. As others have mentioned, I get more irritated at being called a "truther", mostly because the way it is said, or the perceived "tone" of it is intended as an insult. "Shill" or "Disinfo agent" are just laughable to me. When someone is called a "truther", it is often in the form of spit venom. The other two I don't care much for and find more childish than anything else and does nothing but work to derail threads.

So, any answer to my above questions?

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Why is it many members can spot shills, but mods seem to have blinkers on?

It's not impossible, if intelligent members can spot shill behaviours in that forum then the mods sure can.

Nice example here of the type of thing that forced the close down.

You just don't get it do you?

A viewpoint different to your own does not make someone a "shill" or a "paid poster", it simply means that they have a viewpoint that differs from yours

All that happens by applying such labels is polarisation, and from that point on closed minds prevail, no discussion can be had and the whole point of a discussion forum is lost, because the conversation becomes adversarial and dictatorial.

ATS is a discussion forum, for people to talk about things. Not a one way street dictating a single viewpoint on a topic. And that is the same regardless of what anyones personal beliefs are

Board staff don't spot "shills" because, frankly there is no proof of it, its entirely subjective to the person using the term and the implication is an ad hominem attack on a poster simply to try and discredit an opposing viewpoint, which is against the site T&C

Why, oh why, is that so damn hard for people to understand?

reply to post by neformore


I'd like to restate there were a bunch of folk who dragged me into their strange lair and tried to get me on their "side". I appreciate the efforts made by this site and it is one of the reasons I stick around. Gracias para su decision.

CJ

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


In his OP, skeptic used the term "shill" as an example of what is/was wrong with the forum. That problem is a lack of civility among a segment of the forum population.

Truther. OS'er. Shill. All are used as ad hom attacks against people who have done nothing save disagree with someones opinion.

All terms used in derogatory fashion will be actioned appropriately. That mean, for at least the first month, a banning of ones account.

So, my suggestion is, don't use derogatory language of any sort.

reply to post by Kratos1220


I answered that question, you must have missed the response. Please check the posts, it's there.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Alright this is getting silly - you change your avatar as much as I do. Perhaps we should have an avatar-off (kind of like a dance off)

CJ

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

In his OP, skeptic used the term "shill" as an example of what is/was wrong with the forum. That problem is a lack of civility among a segment of the forum population.

Truther. OS'er. Shill. All are used as ad hom attacks against people who have done nothing save disagree with someones opinion.

All terms used in derogatory fashion will be actioned appropriately. That mean, for at least the first month, a banning of ones account.

So, my suggestion is, don't use derogatory language of any sort.

Is this too much? "Hey seagull - what up Willis?" Sorry I am just trying to make people realize how silly this back and forth is...

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Alright this is getting silly - you change your avatar as much as I do. Perhaps we should have an avatar-off (kind of like a dance off)

CJ

I'm the height of avatar fashion and have to stay on top of my game

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I agree with the silliness aspect...

reply to post by PurpleChiten


And I am the Low-end of avatar creation! Jpegs off the most obvious site vs. media creation experts! GO!

CJ