It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 91
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:42 AM
Loam is absolutely right in what he's saying.

There is NO rush.

If it is up to US to decide, which is the case i believe... then let US (members) decide.

ALL of us.
Let's do it properly so that everyone is happy.

That's all myself, Loam and MOST other people have said.
Those that keep saying a "handful" of members or "just a few oppose this" are blatantly ignoring the posts of the MAJORITY!!

This will not be resolved until we listen to everybody and allow EVERYBODY a say.

Now, I don't mind if ultimately staff pick from a new revised list or we do.... irrelevant really, but we DO need a revised list, one that EVERYONE gets a say in..



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:45 AM

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by loam

I read it mate...

I know, people like to "get things done" but it is wrong to forsake the views of many.

I am quite offended at the small number who think somehow they are running this.... you are NOT.
This site is for everyone..... everyone (apart from mods and owners) is equal on here, so we all deserve an equal say!!!

It's really not that complicated and to keep ignoring these facts and pushing ahead blindly...will result in ill-feeling... from MOST people on here.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by blupblup

Originally posted by blupblup
Those that keep saying a "handful" of members or "just a few oppose this" are blatantly ignoring the posts of the MAJORITY!!

I have the same impression this might be true.

If the task weren't so daunting, I'd tally each post (1800+) in the thread. Obviously, that looks pretty tough to do now.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:57 AM

Originally posted by loam
I have the same impression this might be true.

If the task weren't so daunting, I'd tally each post (1800+) in the thread. Obviously, that looks pretty tough to do now.

Exactly what i wanted to do....
Get a proper look at how this transpired... but i was there, i remember how it happened.

And we were NOT told that only those on the list could vote.. not AT ALL.
That is why up until relatively recently, i did not object.
However, you go away for a few hours, come back and all of a sudden you're an "outsider" and have no say in what happens??

I think NOT!!!

And i can't even imagine how those who missed most of this until say last night must feel..
Which i why i am speaking up for those who are "allowed" to vote... which i must say is entirely the fault of ( some of)the members....not the staff.

[edit on 27/2/09 by blupblup]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:59 AM

Originally posted by blupblup
...which i must say is entirely the fault of the members....not the staff.

I agree.

We can do better than this.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:01 AM

Originally posted by loam

I agree.

We can do better than this.

We CAN and we WILL.


For the sake of fairness and equality... and to DENY IGNORANCE.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:03 AM
reply to post by blupblup

I agreed with loam's review and have sent a U2U to both SO and BH that the small time frame invalidates the vote. Failure to make the process fair isn't going to work well. We may be back to square one here or we might be looking at just a hand pick by the staff despite their interest in the members handling it.

SO may agree it was too short or may disagree and let it go as is. And maybe the whole idea will be scrapped due to the problems that it has caused and the ban will stand as is.

I think it best that we let things rest until SO speaks up on the matter to clear this up without having to wade through too many pages.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:09 AM
reply to post by blupblup

I agree, Ive been asleep when most of this went down...
And its not like it emailed me everytime progress was made.
Luckily loam messaged me so I knew what was going on!

And I agree the whole committee is a ridiculous notion, unless it is a committee of say...30? Then we can get many more opinions, without having hundreds of posters.

We could do so in a separate (private?) thread, but then the matter of time zones obfuscates it as well...

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:09 AM
reply to post by Ahabstar

I agree... let's hope that this can be resolved fairly and not rushed.

Nice one mate

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by Ridhya

I know man... hopefully our voices will be heard... but we'll see.
I don't have high hopes to be honest.

But this matter will not resolved until everyone has a say.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:12 AM
reply to post by Ahabstar

Thank you for understanding my point.

I don't think we need to necessarily throw this back to SO. We just need to decide to open the nomination list for some agreed period of time. Then decide how voting or selection will take place and it's timing.

We could have our committee by COB Monday.

Does that really sound so terrible or too long?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:22 AM
I sincerely apologize for this late random posting, but I would seriously like to be considered for this panel of members for this committee.

I really hope it's not too late to throw my hat in, but if you check my profile I am very much interested/involved in this topic. I have a very good and simple proposal to solve this problem and make everyone happy (including the Google ad problem). It would involve a zero tolerance policy for the "stoners" and a private forum.

If this information is obsolete and you've already solved this/chosen the members, please don't flame me I just can't filter through 90 pages of this thread (haha); if this post is worth something and I can still be considered, I will keep checking this thread or if someone could U2U me it would be great.

I would seriously be a good person for this committee and is something I know I could be of use of. Peace.

Vancouver Island, British Columbia

Attached are some posts currently on ATS made by me:

(Last link is RATS...)

[edit on 27-2-2009 by matth]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:34 AM
With all due respect guys, we can go on re-inventing the wheel ad infinitum.

The process has begun with the support of SO.

Let me just say that if nominated, anyone can contact me at any time with any suggestion - and although I don't speak for anyone else, I would imagine they feel the same way.

We need to present a united front on this - from all sides and for all concerned, otherwise what's the point?

There was a majority vote so it went ahead - if we go back on that we will lose all credibility, and likely the process will not go forwards.

Not one of us is doing this for ourselves, we are doing it for the good of the board and because we believe that members deserve the chance to discuss this most contentious of issues.

All I'm asking for in this post is a common sense look at what has been happenning in the thread - if we try to satisfy one person, we have to satisfy everyone, and trying to do that will lead to chaos and get us nowhere.

We end up like westminster or washington, with lobby groups, special interest groups and individuals all wanting a small concession, all wanting a slice of pie and nothinng getting done to anyones satisfaction, and ending up looking like idiots who couldn't organise a beer up in a brewery.

For all that I understand your concerns and points, I really think we should now just get on with it, as SO said to Sdog.

Most here know me well enough to know that I will be true to my word if nominated to the committee - in other words, should I be one of the 6, my voice will be your voice.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:40 AM
So to sum up here, it looks like we are going to have a forum (restricted) dedicated to drug topics which will be "overseen" by some staff and this self elected committee.

Er.. im guessing that this committee is made up of a broad spectrum of members who are able to deal with drug related issues i.e. doctors, medical researchers, drug users, social workers, drug councillors etc.

Whether this forum is restricted or not, what will happen when someone asks for advice related to drug use. Will the committee be given training on how to advise these people?

I know this is a conspiracy site and there is a need to discuss drug related conspiracies. But the drug topic as a whole needs to be examined more closely, because you cannot predict what someone will want to discuss or ask questions about. This is a very serious subject matter and at the moment its being addressed in a very relaxed way.

If done properly this forum could offer valuable help to those that need it, by offering free expert advice.

This project / forum is going to be very demanding, time consuming, and maybe use up alot of resources but I guess you know this.

I have seen what drugs can do to people (or should I say what they did to my friends) so by all means discuss the subject but also realize what you are getting involved with.

I hope that people involved with this project have the sense to slow down and address this topic properly.

Thats it, ive said my bit.

Good luck I think your gonna need it.


posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:46 AM
reply to post by John Q

You know what JohnQ I think that's actually a really good idea. While there are going to be some very valid arguments in favor of certain substances, the fact remains that they can be addictive and abused, just like many other "non-drug" substances. I think that people being able to talk about drug abuse/help in a mature, unbiased and non-judgmental atmosphere could be of great use.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:47 AM
reply to post by budski

Originally posted by budski
There was a majority vote so it went ahead

This is the part I don't get.

By whom?


Majority of what?

Could you actually show me those things?

Because, this is what I saw.

I too am a nominee. While I'd be glad to be on this committee and would intend to represent the membership fairly, I'm not sure we were fair to the membership in the process we pursued.

I'm not terribly comfortable with that.

And I also no longer believe the majority runs in favor with the present course.

We should reopen nominations, agree upon a selection process, and set appropriate timing for each. That gives all who are interested a reasonable chance.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:58 AM
reply to post by loam

I think we can go round in circles for ever on this.

For better or worse a decision was made, and let's face it, any decision is better than no decision at all.

I happen to believe this was for the best, and I am not going to get into a debate about it - that is part of the problem, we don't need to debate the placing of every comma, apostrophe and full stop.

What we do need to do is drive this forwards, and make decisions that benefit everyone.

You know as well as I do that there are those whose only wish will be to throw a spanner in the works, and if we bow to every single wish this initiative will get nowhere.

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:04 AM
reply to post by budski

Please don't get angry. I can appreciate you no longer wish to debate the subject. But clearly many do.

I believe the difficulties you describe are false. I have already offered an option that provides fairness without causing undue delay.

Finally, you keep saying it was 'decided', but in truth, I am no longer convinced the MAJORITY support our present course.

In fact, I'm having difficulty finding a time when that was ever true.

This is the right thing to do.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by loam]

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:13 AM
reply to post by budski

You're all right, Jack. You got nominated. You got a vote.

Other folk aren't quite so fortunate.

It's truly shocking to see ATS members deny nomination & voting rights to their fellow members simply on account of their absence during a brief seven hour period on Wednesday night. It's outrageous.

Equally disturbing, from recent pages in this thread at least, has been to see members roll over & acquiesce each and every time SO makes an intervention, whether it be his 24 hour suggestion which prompted nominations to close & the voting of the few to commence, to his suggestion that Management itself choose the committee members.

And where have these vocal nominees been, the ones on whom all our hopes depend ? The last 24 hours have been marked by an uncharacteristic silence by most. What's that about exactly ? Disagreeing with this sham of an election but lying low in the hope they don't upset the electorate of the elite ? Hoping the mud don't stick ?

If this so called election continues to its logical conclusion I for one won't recognise its validity or the committee itself. This committee will not represent anything other than the desire of some to climb the greasy pole & of others to deny fairness to their fellow members.

This committee of the few, by the few.

new topics

top topics

<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in