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: 54
42
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Personally, I think you would best suited for the committee... I really hope that you don't withdraw your name from the nominees list


I think you would be an increddible asset to the team...

Just my thoughts.

- Carrot




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reddupo

We're going for expediency here, and whoever is deeply concerned with who gets on the committee can just nominate themselves so they can vote.

(If I am understanding everything I've just caught up on)


If BH gets the go-ahead from admin to use the idea of voting amongst nominees anyway, yes.

I don't know, maybe there should be some kind of requirement for self-nomination to limit it to people who are serious about serving


But we haven't even heard back from staff about whether they would support this idea, and if they don't then there's not much sense worrying about it.

SDog: I think that you should definitely leave your name in if you're interested in serving on the committee. BH seems willing to do the organization, and she can probably get someone else to help if needed, someone who doesn't want to be on the DISC committee.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


If she really needs hep, she can ask me. I am not nominated on the list, and i am more than willing to help. You are right, people who are honest and good nominations, should stay put, because we need people like that in the committee.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


thanks


i understand..



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Im not really liking this.


I think there should be an age limit instead. Like you must be 18 years old to join thing... I mean that would eliminate alot of the immature content everyone is complaining about.

But this rule sucks.


Sorry.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This is lame, a step backward for ATS.

I think the ATS motto should change to "Embrace Ignorance".



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
'm not taking any names off the list.
If our new plan goes through (I've just written the proposal and am deciding who to sent it to) we won't need that list.

Who should I send this proposal to?

Shro you and skeptic1 would be better on the committee in my opinion, if you have the desire. It will probably be a lot more fun than this is, too.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
This is lame, a step backward for ATS.

Clearly, you're not reading the update links in the opening post...

UPDATE ONE

UPDATE TWO

thread summary



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I guess Springer and SkepticOverlord are the obvious choices; maybe Gazrok and intrepid, since they both chimed in on this thread and have experience from the last DISC? have there been any other staff members on this thread?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


um, speak of the devil, send it to SO, straight to the top.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wisen Heimer
Im not really liking this.


I think there should be an age limit instead. Like you must be 18 years old to join thing... I mean that would eliminate alot of the immature content everyone is complaining about.

But this rule sucks.


Sorry.


I find that very offensive. I myself am 17, and have been on this thread since the beginning. I have been polite, and not once have i been immature. That is usually how i always post. I disagree with a age limit. Simple as that. There are mature people who are young on these forums.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by darcon]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Send it to Skeptic Overlord, or Springer.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


The more imprtiality and diversity we can inject into this, the better.

We should choose from a wide range of diverse opinions and see that every group (within reason) has a voice on the commitee.

otherwise, it's just open to accusations of bias, one way or another.

For my own part, I find the conspiracy side very interesting - I have no intention of campaigning at any point in the future, for or against legalisation as my interests don't lie in that area.

This is the major reason why I supported the original ban - every attempt of mine to construct a meaningfull discussion was derailed to the extent that I just couldn't be bothered.

However, if we are going to move forwards with this, and actually get something worthwhile where we can discuss one of the biggest conspiracies in a mature and thoughtfull manner, then I will gladly do whatever is needed to help this along.

So with that in mind, if my name needs to come off the list to whittle it down some more, then go right ahead



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wisen Heimer
 


And how would that be fair to schrodingers dog? The guy is only 6 years old for gosh sake.

 


schrodingers dog and Maxmars should stay on the list imo because I think that they both would be excellent choices for DISC.

schrodingers dog is a great asset to this board. He has a unique way of looking at a broad range of topics and has a high level of intelegence.

Maxmars is also a good choice imo because his posts tend to reflect an altruistic approach and the level of intelegence he puts forth, ensures a level headed and unbiased approach to the problem.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I sent it to Skeptic Overlord. This is what I sent, but it may change in the details if it's accepted at all.


On picking a DISC for a drug discussion forum, member americandingbat came up with this idea and the following is my proposal based on her idea. I would like staff’s opinion and backing on moving forward with this idea, if it’s approved.

I would like to start a thread for self-nominations where any ATS member who wanted to be on the committee would state their reasons and qualifications. This thread would stay open for a period of time. Say 2 weeks.

After that time, I would conduct a vote, among those members only, for whomever they think would best fit the committee. In other words, only members who are interested enough in the subject and want to volunteer a significant amount of time over an open-ended period, would be voting for their peers. This method would be less open to "popularity contest" skewing than an open forum vote. I think if each nominee voted for 3 members, it would be a fair selection process.

They can send their vote to me via U2U for privacy.

The top 6 would form the committee and could vote among themselves for the DISC leader.

I'll be happy to conduct this thread and count the votes and display the results.

Please let me know if I have the “go-ahead” from staff and I’ll get started on this ASAP.

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



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
This is lame, a step backward for ATS.


AS ATS has grown, the real ownership seems to have transferred to and are now seemingle beholden to the very entities that are the subject of most of the conspiracy theories. The big pharma co's and the alcohol and tobacco industries are in real panic right now, more states are leaning towards going against the feds, the ones who are in the pockets of those companies, and seeing what may take place in CA and will surely spread, they are going to fight like mother bears to stop it, and this is one of the results.

The irony in a conspiracy site being run by the conspirators is pretty obvious, but oh well. I still like the discussions on other topics, but on this issue, the true colors of the ownership are vibrant.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


budski, please don't take yourself off the list.


You are as worthy a candidate as any, if not more.


Edit: This goes for everyone else as well. As it has been said, we need a broad range of members to be eligible to better represent the overall community.





[edit on 26 Feb 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




I think that looks great, BH.

I want to add one thing to the proposal: that after the voting is done, the results be added to the end of the nomination thread so that the membership can see who we voted for.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
AS ATS has grown, the real ownership seems to have transferred to and are now seemingle beholden to the very entities that are the subject of most of the conspiracy theories. The big pharma co's and the alcohol and tobacco industries are in real panic right now

Do you have substantiation for that statement that is a direct insult to me, Springer, and Simon?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join