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: 73
42
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by blupblup
 

You were involved. You were here. You nominated ANOK, Amaterasu and SaviorComplex. You were aware of my attempted board-wide vote, saying, "I think it could turn into a popularity contest rather than picking who is best suited to the role."

You suggested a summary thread and Skeptic1 did that.
You agreed that I should organize the vote.
What are you complaining about again?


Er....perhaps READ my posts and you'll see what my problem is???
Yes i WAS here, i DID vote for my choices, I DO think you should organize the vote.

But I along with every other MEMBER on here deserve a say in said vote.
Don't try and start an argument with me....
Just READ my posts above for my issues.....




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
With the voting finally going down I thought maybe I should take a minute to let those who may not be familiar with me know where I stand on this whole "drug issue".

It has been my feeling for a long time that ATS,by not allowing mature discussion on "Drug Topics",has completely discounted a very important aspect of conspiracy discussion.

To ban all discussion of drugs completely removes discussion of certain facets of investigation by Terence Mckenna,Rick Strassman,Daniel Pinchbeck,and other such modern day philosophers.

Today the discussion of '___',Salvia,'___',and other "entheogens" is just as important,in my view,as discussing meditation,astral projection,etc.

These topics delve into the conspiracy realm in so many ways that no one who is serious about investigating conspiracy related topics can steer clear of them for long.

To remove drugs from the picture is to remove a HUGE slice of the pie when it comes to serious investigation.

As I said in a thread a while back,I'm not saying we need to allow discussions such as "Happy 420.....I'm Blizzazed!!!" or "How to build a bong with Your tinfoil Hat",but there are many aspects of drug related topics that overlap into "conspiracy" topics.

Now,having said all that....I would be really proud to be able to be a part of integrating these topics into our discussions and investigation here at ATS.

However,even if I am not voted in,I appreciate and congratulate everyone involved,and especially those who have spent so much time to make sure that this issue is finally resolved.

As long as something is done about this,I for one will be happy.

Thanks,
Doc



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
It's more the principle... i almost never participate in drug threads... couldn't care less honestly, but others SHOULD be able to talk about them.


That's what we're trying to do! Make it so others can talk about them. Anyone who wants to as long as they stay within the T&C.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Many of us have been on here for almost a day straight, debating solutions, and making all the nominees aware of what the different options are that ALL the members are suggesting.

Exactly. We are trying are best. We were getting slack for not choosing a decision quick enough, so when we finally reached one, w just get more slack.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's what we're trying to do! Make it so others can talk about them. Anyone who wants to as long as they stay within the T&C.



Well thanks for that....i wasn't aware

It's not about that.... that was a response to another poster... stick to our discussion, please



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Historically speaking, if you search through old threads when this has popped up in the past... The membership's opinions won't matter.

You'll get the "warm fuzzy" that you need by participating in discussion... but at the end of the day, you'll walk away having accomplished nothing, but with the feeling you have...

It's all about the bottom line here... PPC/ad revenue.

Its not about the members... Its about making money off the member's posts.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DocGonzo
 


Thanks for your disposition.

Where i am from, Salvia is actually legal surprisingly. I am not sure if it is in the states.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DocGonzo
 





As I said in a thread a while back,I'm not saying we need to allow discussions such as "Happy 420.....I'm Blizzazed!!!" or "How to build a bong with Your tinfoil Hat",but there are many aspects of drug related topics that overlap into "conspiracy" topics.


I can say that I am right with you on this sentiment.

Personal use is one thing, the thing, that got this ball rolling. If we can't discuss drug topics without devolving into how cool smoking weed is, then this may not be the forum for those people.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
If we let every member vote on the nominees for this committee who should be relaying the general opinion of all members anyway, it would take weeks to get a vote from everyone, and we would not be guaranteed that everyone was aware of the situation. By allowing the nominees only to vote, they are all aware of the situation going on, because almost all of them have been involved in this thread in some respect.

I think that's really important. And SO said to make a decision, not specifically to make a vote. I think this option is better than cutting down nominees one by one publicly, which was another option.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Lets just cool down here for a sec, i dont think i have actually seen benevolent put an exclamation mark in her sentence, which means we are treading some seriously strange and angry ground here

Evey one take a deep breath, were all fighting here. I thought we were doing a good thing when we decided to go fourth with the vote.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by DocGonzo
 


Thanks for your disposition.

Where i am from, Salvia is actually legal surprisingly. I am not sure if it is in the states.


hehe according to the new rules... you're not allowed to discuss it though...

There's language to the effect that you can't discuss it, even if its legal where you are...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
If we let every member vote on the nominees for this committee who should be relaying the general opinion of all members anyway, it would take weeks to get a vote from everyone, and we would not be guaranteed that everyone was aware of the situation. By allowing the nominees only to vote, they are all aware of the situation going on, because almost all of them have been involved in this thread in some respect.


But when names were being put forward, this wasn't the reason.
It has been changed.... and this is unfair.

As i said, had i known that being on the list was a criteria to vote, i would have been nominated.....as I'm sure others would have too.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Yea
sorry, i was just noting an observation.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


Best advice is not to take the bait.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


But right now the administration is giving a committee a chance. Why not be optimistic and have everyone try their hardest to make it work?

It's really, really not about money.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Look, I tried to make it so everyone could vote. The thread was CLOSED.
I proposed what you want to Skeptic Overlord. And I have shown you his response. Your argument is not with me.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DocGonzo
 


A great post and one that i would star if i could.


Oh and to the member who mentioned salvia being legal, let us not forget the fact that in many countries cannabis is legal, but ultimately that has absolutely no say in the matter unfortunately.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Well, like some said, you can't please everyone.

To those that disagree with what has transpired, I'm truly sorry that we couldn't come to a more popular decision, but you have to remember - when this thread was started, it was to announce there will be NO MORE drug related discussion. There are many here that felt like this was a great in-justice. Not to those that are for or against drugs in general, but for those that are in favor of being able to discuss things that are important to them.

ATS has had problems in the past: Don't Forget. And they were able to resolve issues.

I think most of us here felt there had to be another way to deal with the problem rather than banning an entire topic.

Again, I'm sorry if everyone doesn't agree with what has happened.

The verdict is still out and debating over the means to the end will not resolve the issue.

I'm retiring from the discussion until there are further updates to the outcome.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by tyranny22]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


I'm sorry, dear, we all thought it was pretty clear in the thread when we made that decision, and we did ask if there was any objection. Skeptic1 has been asking if everyone is okay with the actions that have been made every step of the way, and at least 3 people, all the way to over 10 people, have agreed and been a majority on every action passed.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by darcon
 


I dont need you to repost (without any contribution from yourself) information I have already read.

I saw that. And there would still need to be clarification between any committee and the owners about what could be tolerated specifically.

For instance could a person reference such as "I did x and went to jail.... had a heart attack.....was entrapped by a DEO...WAS a DEO.....CIA operative forced x substance on me in an experiment....etc" be acceptable? Or NO personal reference at all.

Or are they trying to eliminate, "X substance is good, it leads you to higher knowledge......x substance is totally fun dude.... x substance was all over this party last weekend...etc."

If they want no personal "I and x substance" at all remarks, that is one thing. If they want no "x substance is fun, good, should be done" comments that is another. That needs to be known before a real solution can be had. Are they just trying to get the word off the boards for filtering purposes? Or is it just to stop attracting certain types of new members as SO indicates in his post? Or both?

If self policing was put in place, with members alerting on posts that broke the T&C, (so as not to burden Mods further) could there be a way to implement that so that other posters could see the post has already had an alert sounded on it? To avoid a flood of new alerts that would also burden mods and staff? Would a visible "alert sounded" feature warn other posters that the road that post was taking was not a safe road to go down and thus prevent twn new posters from joining in on the "yeah dude, it was radical..." deviation from topic?

You have to discuss. You have to know both the motives (as fully as possible and with as much clarity as possible) and limitations before you can come to a conclusion. You dont just come up with a popular solution among committee members that may or may not meet the needs of the owners.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join