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: 27
42
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


My thoughts precisely.




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Man, I hope Ravenshadow is picked for the committee just to piss people off now.





Funniest comment I've seen so far.
And i second that.


You need both for and against as i said.
And all in between too.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


Well unlike Congress, if I should happen to be in on this thing. I will make sure it is mentioned. Even though I don't think it is the best answer as yet.

Not much, but it is a fairer shake than what we got on the bailouts.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


I'd rather fund something myself that wasn't biased toward a localized population but yes if this is ATS's only way then so be it.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


We need to represent everyone.....from each extreme. Pro-drug topic members, no-drug topic members, and a few that are ok with a strict compromise.

That way, everyone is represented and the whole discussion is fair.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


I'm not saying "Ehh maybe we shouldn't."

You know what it means when you assume...

I don't know why I post if people don't read what I say, especially when I'm working to support the people who seem to dislike what they think I'm saying.

[edit on 2/25/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Because unfortunately the subject is open to new posters who want to talk about personal experiences and break T&C thats why. Is this not the reason for the ban? It is because of the subject matter that a requirement would be needed. It would be very easy to explain to new members.

ok then people 1000 points then???
Any type of requirement like this would be easy to implement and control for moderators.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Monger
I'd like to make a point of saying that I have no interest in being a part of the committee, as much as I look forward to the fruits of their labours.


I think we need you, or people like you, in on this committee. You are not going to cheer lead and anything you have to say will not be whitewashed.


The committee needs me about as much as it needs you.

Go ahead and explain to me the difference between a responsible drug user and a child molester again, I love that one.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 


I understand what you are saying, and we indeed have been banned, but their are people at both ends of the spectrum. What i think, is that we need people who are not biased(On both sides), as apposed to having people from each side of the spectrum, that my friend would be counter productive.

With that being said, the staf will choose the five that are chosen, and whoever gets nominated, gets nominated(Unless they don't want to be nominated
)



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
RS is alledgedly so anti-drugs she's a liability yet she contributes while three pro-people attempt a de-rail, wonderful stuff. i love this board.

i hope she's on the lobby group now too.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Benevolent Heretic
Maxmars
Whatuknow
DocGonzo
Loam
tyranny22
ravenshadow13
Saviour Complex
Schrodingers Dog
Skeptic1
[edit on 25-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


For what it's worth, my shortlist is above, with BH, maxmars, Saviour Complex, Schrodingers Dog and Skeptic1 my recommendations, if we can only have 5.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And Amaterasu, if you want to nominate yourself, I'm not sure daily access is necessary, As long as you stay involved, maybe a few times a week, I think it would work.
Let me know.


[smile] I would surely be interested in "keeping the piece...er...peace!" [grin]

If it does not require a guarantee of a daily (though it's likely to be close to that) commitment, that count me in!



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by N. Tesla
why do we need people on the other end for this one? we already had been banned from talking about this. we are trying to get it back. why do we need people there going "ehh maybe we shouldnt"?



The proposed forum is not only for those who support legalization. It is for everyone on ATS. And Raven's attitude regarding drug-use has no bearing on her nomination; it's the fact she has discussed this in a rational manner, intelligent, and mature manner. And you must have missed the fact that since she joined the conversation, she has been one of those driving to get this new forum established.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I am a member of a canna website myself and I don't see the problem of restricting the material posted on this forum concerning mind altering drugs.like SO said,he will review the scenario later.I can see it is not easy to keep every one happy all the time in any subject.Really, I cannot see a problem with the T&C.Like I said earlier,Join a site what suits your agenda.

Carry on.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by N. Tesla
 



that would be insane to have her there. we are already fighting to get the rights back that we deserve (free speech) why would we need her there to make things harder.


You have made a very serious error in understanding what is being proposed here.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Marijuana is legal in California, at least as prescription; so to answer your question yes I'm talking about a prescription.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


I say 500. Just because more people should be able to post, and new members shouldn't troll the boards for points just because they want to post in the new forum (and if they shouldn't be there and break the rules, they'll be penalized anyway)



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
If I may make a small suggestion.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a certain minimum amount of ATS posts before one is eligible to participate in said forum. Both for their protection and for the integrity of the forum.

I know it took me a while to "find my feet" so to speak when I first joined. I'd hate to lose new members just out of confusion or misunderstandings.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
free speech covers my right to talk about the legalization of pot.

there is no spectrum for free speech. you either have it or you dont. and we have it. therefore we will fight to get it back. we dont need people arguing to limit it.

am i making it clearer?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


It is of my opinion, that you need Unbiased people. Instead of having people who are for and against the drug issue on the committee. Why you ask? Because nothing will get done then.

Regardless, the staff will choose the committee.

PS ravenshadow isn't that biased?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join