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.

 

Someone explain the double standard policy to me

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZoranderyou want a drug discussion so bad (as it seems)...then break out your High Times magazine and just head over to another forum. Nobody is stopping you.



....did you even read that thread or just jump to defend a fellow mod? it clearly was about meditation, not drugs.....




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
its obvious to anyone with eyes that he wasnt promoting drug use, he was using refrences to expierences to describe things, where is promotion of drug use made anywhere in that thread? mojom has a good point...


It's obvious he has taken way to many drugs.

And NO, it's not a good point. It drama just for the sake of drama.

When I go to my Grandma's house...she says no wearing damn shoes. Am I going to start some long discussion about how technically sandals are not "shoes" or that flip-flops are only plastic? No...I just don't wear the damn shoes.

Oh sure I could continue the drama and say "but Grandma, what about boots because boots are not really shoes" but in the end I know I'm just being petty and stooopid.

So, once again...the Owners do not want those type of duscussions. How about do something like respecting their rules in their house and just move on. Seems like a much more mature route.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
namehere(or anyone else), if you care to debate this via u2u, sans drama
feel free.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I've never contributed to a thread closed for "illegal" content but I have for other reasons. This sounds like a grey area that's open to opinion and so forth. "War stories" and the like are an easy call but what about something else?

Like what would happen in a theoretical thread about lsd testing on armed forces and a test subject and a self-experimental or a "recreational" user engaged in a discussion about flashbacks, etc.? This would seem to be a relevant addition to the thread's topic. Trance inducties experience ongoing "floating" even after leaving trance-using groups or cults. Or what about a philosopher like a Burroughs or Ginsberg or Leary who all "discovered" something about sober "reality" based on their past experiences? Would they be able to attribute an experience of note back to a substance?In any case, threads get closed for various reasons and every moderator is going to have a different opinion. It is frustrating to be accused of drama or similar when questions like these are raised.

Is there a minimum number of currently online moderators necessary for closure at a given time?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
When I go to my Grandma's house...she says no wearing damn shoes. Am I going to start some long discussion about how technically sandals are not "shoes" or that flip-flops are only plastic? No...I just don't wear the damn shoes.

Oh sure I could continue the drama and say "but Grandma, what about boots because boots are not really shoes" but in the end I know I'm just being petty and stooopid.
.


no, i'd compare it to being yelled at about wearing socks after being told not to wear shoes, both go on the feet but are 2 different things, he was discussing an effect similar to being high BY MEDITATION, not discussing drug use and its effects.

and what does "its obvious he did too many drugs" mean? i could look in quite a few threads and find crazy talk worse than that thread and if i said that i'd be warned, not very "modly" of you.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by namehere]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
no, i'd compare it to being yelled at about wearing socks after being told not to wear shoes, both go on the feet but are 2 different things, he was discussing an effect similar to being high BY MEDITATION, not discussing drug use and its effects.


But of course he just HAD to throw in the comments:

"Ill admit im usually stoned when im in this state of mind..."

"Im completely sober right now and im seeing it almost as clearly as if I was stoned."




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Yet to get a u2u. So does this board drama continue or do you WANT a resolution or just take a stab at those that keep this site a place where you want to be?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZoranderBut of course he just HAD to throw in the comments:


so? he has nothing else to compare it to....mentioning expierence for explaination purposes wasnt against the rules last looked, if it was an ex-druggie describing his past in an anti-drug thread would that be closed too?

edit: wrong word

[edit on 15-11-2005 by namehere]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZoranderBut of course he just HAD to throw in the comments:


so? he has nothing else to compare it to....mentioning expierence for explaination purposes wasnt outside the rules last looked, if it was an ex-druggie describing his past in an anti-drug thread would that be closed too?



Originally posted by intrepid
namehere(or anyone else), if you care to debate this via u2u, sans drama
feel free.


OK, I must be invisible.

*off to the womens locker room*

Seeing as this isn't a new thread(2 weeks old) and the only purpose I can see is to bash the unpaid staff for this great site, can anyone explain to me why this thread should continue? More drama? For what purpose?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Let me attempt to answer your question, sir.

*ahem*

No reason for it to continue.

Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join