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: 51
42
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 





be set up for the discussion of "drug conspiracies" that would require payment in points and a minimum of posts or contributions to ATS? 3,000 points and a minimum of 300 posts?


Nothing is written in stone yet. We weren't even supposed to be discussing ideas until we nominated the committee. In my honest opinion, i was against that idea.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
BH and skeptic1 should be the people, at least, to organise the vote, they have been doing a good job so far, why fix it if it ain't broke.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
What is this D.I.S.C forum? I think i missed the thread can't seem to find it...

What is it? Why are we voting? etc



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
BH and skeptic1 should be the people, at least, to organise the vote, they have been doing a good job so far, why fix it if it ain't broke.



Amen to that!!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by darcon

Correct me if i am wrong, but i believe we are choosing someone to organize the vote?

Benevelont and Reddupo removed themselves from nomination.




I read budski's post about SDog ".ing this up" to refer to .ing the committee, not the vote.

I definitely think BH is the right choice for organizing the vote if she's willing.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Hi folks, I am happy to help should you wish me to.

My vote though would be for Skeptic1 or BH. They both have been doing much of the work already since yesterday, and if either is willing they would be perfect for it and would have my support. I have the utmost respect for both as members.


I am more than happy to assist either Skeptic1 or BH in this endeavor should they require it.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Well, i think we are .ing in the right direction then. Many people seem to agree with the Benevolent Heretic or Skeptic1

Problem is, like you were, many people are still off line and don't know what the heck is going on. The question is, how long to we wait until the person we choose to organize this thing, actually organizes it. And how long do we wait to choose the person who is organizing this ROFL



[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I will not talk about drugs.
but you want to hear? ok... lets discuse:

I HATE DRUGS.
DRUGS DESTROY MANY FAMILYS
THEY DESTROY LIFES!
DRUGS ARE B****S****


enough discusion

OPEN THE CHAT HM?

NW



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacecowgirl
Good move. So pleased druggies cannot gloat here about how tough they are and do their "Look at me I am such a bad a**" . It is truly pathetic to still see grown men and women thinking it is cool to take drugs. Boooooring! So very boring and annoying.
Good for ATS to take this action, well done.


Not everyone thinks it's cool, many people are addicted, many people use stuff for meditation and inspiration.... Despite what you may or may not think, life is not as shallow and black and white as you think.

Here's hoping this reply gets taken on its own merit and doesn't get deleted by the gunners here.

One love.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
And how long do we wait to choose the person who is organizing this ROFL





Excellent questions – maybe we should form a committee to talk about the schedule for committee forming? (sorry folks, that was a joke, not for real. I'll be serious from here on)

Seriously, I think it would be reasonable to open a thread for interested members to post why they're interested anytime; leave that open until say Saturday evening U.S. time, then have voting for 3-4 days.

I also think it would be great if we could have anonymous voting instead of posting it in a list, because I think it might cut down a bit on the "prom king/queen" factor.

[edit on 2/26/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
we should wait exactly as long as it takes for either to accept the challenge we, it's just to give cohesion to the voting method, voting for someone to organise a vote is one step too far.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I totally agree..
And it's responses and knee-jerk comments like the one you replied to there, that is the reason we NEED this forum and we need it to work.


To educate the uneducated and enlighten the ignorant.

[edit on 26/2/09 by blupblup]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I vote for Schrodingers dog, a very friendly and helpful member who assited me with some coursework not so long ago.

Peace



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
I also think it would be great if we could have anonymous voting instead of posting it in a list, because I think it might cut down a bit on the "prom king/queen" factor.

[edit on 2/26/09 by americandingbat]


I actually think the exact opposite.
I think a public vote would be best so we can see if the cliques and gangs do side with one another.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I have to run back to class in a few minutes but I'm keeping up with all of this and Benev, I U2Ud you. I think that a lot of really good people have dropped out, which is a shame... I'm not going to because I think I have a good grasp of this and if everyone who was involved with the formulation of proposals and the discussion of this topic in this thread drops, the ideas may not even get across. I think Skeptic1 should ., personally, she really is very, very organized.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Thats a pretty stupid policy for a site that is supposed to offer a place to discuss almost any topic. This website is rapidly going down hill. Too bad too. ATS is clearly no longer a place to discuss important topics. Now its just a form of babysitting for the after school crowd. You guys should just switch over to the social networking format and forget trying to do ANYTHING positive. I cant wait to see ATS's version of Facebook. Lame guys, lame.
BTW, legalizing marijuana and hemp and taxing it seems like a good way to bring in some revenue for the whole country. These plants could save us all. Too bad we cant talk about it. How does a person go about removing his or her self from this sites' membership? Morons...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
To get this committee, we can either:

1, Narrow the list down to those who have the experience and genuine interest in the subject and then they can pick their "leader" out of that group.

( I have sent a U2U to everyone on the list asking if anyone would like to withdraw and no one has yet. So, this option could take weeks.
)

OR

2. We can pick a leader and have them pick the team from the list.

(This would be quicker, but might be seen by some as unfair.)

OR

3. Get cooperation from the administration to hold a vote at some time in the future and announce it board-wide.

(Of course, if it goes "board-wide", this carries the danger of turning into a popularity contest instead of getting the best people for the job. And people are going to be upset that they weren't considered for nomination.)

OR

4. The administration could pick the committee OR A LEADER.

(This seems like the simplest option to me, but from what I've read from Skeptic, he wants those with a compelling interest to pick the committee.)

Thoughts?



[edit on 26-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by spookjr
 


Man, this is tarting to get on my nerves, not your fault, just posts like yours in general now.

The staff is compromising. The posters are forming a 6 man committee, to discuss with the staff about a compromise.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
So...


my .02 on nominations...


First it *has* to be someone who would be reading drug related threads to begin with. Someone with an interest, but someone who is also impartial.

I believe that SD and BH are great members of this site and quite possibly are the most likely to be impartial on this site. Even in heated discussions...

However, as someone who is on a LOT of drug related threads, trying to minimize T&C violations, I have to say that I don't see BH and SD on these threads very often.... it could be that they are not as interested in the subject as I am, or maybe I'm just not paying attention and they really are more involved in that topic. Now I do have to say that they are both very interested in making this a good community for all.

I firmly believe that whoever is nominated MUST have an interest in the subject of Drug Related topics, no matter how tangential to "use" that thread might be, so that it is aligned with their personality and they are inclined to read it.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join