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.

 

The SUSPENSION of illicit drugs/mind altering substance topics on ATS (The experiment failed)

page: 106
42
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
I think we should get a leader ASAP.

nyk has said either SDog or Skeptic1

I think SDog

ravenshadow13 says Skeptic1

Maxmars, sdog, skeptic? Any thoughts?


Maxmars, I say this because I see his posts often and he is level headed and member oriented as well as committed to the site.

Just my opinion.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Good group of people. Well done to all of you.

It'll be most interesting to see where this goes. Good luck.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
...shattering good will between members...


I think everyone knows where I stand on this. But let's not grow the problem you describe.
In fact, let's place these events into proper perspective.

Notwithstanding how they got there, I'm sure the named committee members will nonetheless do a fine job.

Represent well.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You limited the window to those who were already on board. This thread has been running for an additional 50 odd pages and nearly 24 hours past the time you locked the voting.


I did not limit the window. I started a thread for a board-wide vote Here. It was locked by staff.




Even if the list of self appointed nominees was the same, there is no reasonable justification for not allowing all interested members a VOTE during the last 24 hours for those nominees.


I started a thread for a board-wide vote Here. It was locked by staff.



Calling unfair unfair is not "having a victim mentality"


No. But saying you were "locked out" is. I happen to agree that it's unfair. I tried my damnedest to make it more fair with a proposal to SO for a 2-week nomination process and "campaign". I offered to facilitate. It was declined.



How do you even justify not letting us vote on the existing list of nominees?


I don't. See above.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


That obviously stopped when the site admins gave your committee the rights to act on behalf of everybody. I'm all for speaking out about what's right, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing it after an official decision has been made. My points have been duly noted, so that's all I can do.

Snide remarks like that really backs up my opinion that all you people are interested in is the power to make the decision...nothing more. So take your ball and go run with it.

I'll just go back to discussing non-drug related topics with non-ignorants and hypocrites, like I've done for years before on here. I'm out, peace.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I did not limit the window. I started a thread for a board-wide vote Here. It was locked by staff.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I did not limit the window. I started a thread for a board-wide vote Here. It was locked by staff.


And still, people think there's a reason to believe we'll arrive at a solution? Hah!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I just wanted to come in here and say how ironic it is that this is the "end" of drug discussion and right now there's 106 PAGES of discussion! LOL


This is the best!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


They shut down an additional THREAD, on the subject. They did not force any of you to lock out voting by U2U, the same means you were using to vote within your group. That was the doing of your little cartel.

Why dont you just write a post stating that SO made you guys lock out the other members and be done with it? Then he would have a chance to either confirm, in which case there is no room for argument from any one here, or deny that he forced you guys to lock us out of the voting process?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by matth
 


so what, you don't want to have anything to do with the process if you're not on the committee? they have all said they will put forward the suggestion of the membership as a whole.

i find this an interesting position for someone who would no doubt be a valued contributer to the forum if it can be set up.

you did say you were an activist, right?



[edit on 27/2/09 by pieman]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Now that the votes have been cast and counted and the members chosen, isn't it time for everyone to stop bitching and get behind the guys who are trying to help us ALL?

Come on people - get with the programme.

They are doing this for the good of the board.



[edit on 27/2/2009 by budski]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
It's a dirty job but someone has to do it!

Good luck with making a plan that works for members and staff.

I can only speak for myself, but "I ain't mad atcha" as far as any hard feelings go, there is simply no need for such.

We are a community and now we have some members representing us as such. We need to stand behind the choice that was made, and I am glad that staff allowed us this opportunity.

Thanks to everyone who is willing to attempt to make a compromise for the benefit of all.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


Thank you.

Really, thank you!

I can't tell you how much that means after the last couple of days.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by matth
 


I was never after the power, and my question was sincere.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by matth
 


so what, you don't want to have anything to do with the process if you're not on the committee? they have all said they will put forward the suggestion of the membership as a whole.

i find this an interesting position for someone who would no doubt be a valued contributer to the forum if it can be set up.

you did say you were an activist, right?

[edit on 27/2/09 by pieman]


Look Pieman I'm not going to play your game here. I am against this committee because of how it was chosen. It has nothing to do with the fact that I'm not on the committee...I couldn't care less. It's the principle of the issue. We have a group of people that are supposed to be representing the people of this board, but yet they weren't chosen by the people and were basically self-appointed due to some sketchy voting practices.

How do we even know the voting is legit?

And yes sir I'm an activist. I'm an activist for what is right and am 100% against what is wrong. I don't care what the specifics are, if it's wrong it's wrong. This "vote" was wrong, this committee is wrong.

If a new committee were to be voted on that allowed EVERYONE to actually vote (or at least hear the candidate out in an organized way), then my qualms about a committee would end and I doubt I'd be the only one.

Is that too unfair to ask?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


Excellent, so your point was sincere and so was mine. Glad we've come to that agreement. Peace out my friend.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Alright guys, my participation in this thread is over.

We'll be discussing ways to incorporate our ideas onto the main board so that everyone will know what's going on, but I don't think we can make any progress in "this" particular thread anymore.

Thanks everybody for your participation. You'll be hearing from us.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by matth
 


Yeah, we all got together and formed a conspiracy of our own against everyone else. :shk:

I don't know how else to say that the committee wants, welcomes, and needs input from the rest of the members. We are speaking for you. We are speaking for all the other members. We are speaking for ourselves; we are members too.

If we didn't care, we wouldn't have been on this thread fighting this ban for 2 solid days when the other 95% of the membership appeared to care less.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by matth
How do we even know the voting is legit?


I knew that was going to come up. I have saved all the data and if staff wants them, they are welcome to them. I already let the council know.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by matth
 


so what, you don't want to have anything to do with the process if you're not on the committee? they have all said they will put forward the suggestion of the membership as a whole.

i find this an interesting position for someone who would no doubt be a valued contributer to the forum if it can be set up.


I have to agree - I'd be very interested in your thread and ideas

if it's not violating any treaties :-)

I think all ideas and perspectives are valid - I don't see any reason why you can't express yourself in your own thread

it's the ATS way



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join