It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
well then, why is it important to you how we go about trying to facilitate these discussions?
why is there so many people so much more interested in how the committee is chosen that the work the committee would have to do?
Originally posted by matth
In the meantime, the people reading this who actually want to help solve this problem in a reasonable manner maybe can start organizing via U2U (no sense in doing it here where it will just get lost in 5 pages of arguments).
We can come up with an easy solution that can make all sides/parties happy (and it doesn't take a special committee to do what they have planned anyway), then together as a group, we approach the site admins with our plan, suggest 6 people to help the upkeep of this new forum (through discussion and not some 3-hour political campaign on a 95 page thread),and voila; problem solved without making things too complicated and without some committee that can't even get past arguing about when the supposed nominations end.
Originally posted by mister.old.school
I find myself saddened, but not surprised, that the so-called "stoner culture" has inspired the ownership here to restrict discussion of any and all drug-related topics.
I'll abstain, as I don't feel anyone in the list is qualified to represent the community to the extent that is required. I have lost faith in this endeavors ability to succeed in the long run. The most valuable points have simply gone ignored, and the issue of the nominees, and how they're selected has surpassed the reason for the committee in importance. The stages of democracy went full cycle in 50 pages.
All one has to do to realize the futility in this exercise, is examine the reason we're here in the first place. As was argued by myself and a (very) few observant others, the zero tolerance policy was instituted on a sham basis in the first place. A compromise cannot be made, when only one party intends to compromise at all. The administration has made it clear that they simply do not want to make discussion of this topic available (contrary to their claims, actions speak louder than words and all that jazz), and as such are simply humoring the uprising long enough for the flame to extinguish. SO even alluded to as much in his suggestion that the current influx of media coverage on the subject is designed to distract the 20-30 something crowd from real issues.
That said, I hereby declare my independence from a system in which I do not believe to be fair and just. I refuse to be steered and manipulated into thinking I'm getting any semblance of what I call for, when I'm not. In other words, I am denying ignorance.
Originally posted by pieman
good idea matth, instead of a self appointed committee of interested parties working in the open you can organise one behind closed doors that essentially does the exact same thing, that sounds like a much more democratic process
good man, let me know how it works out.
Originally posted by Unit541
All one has to do to realize the futility in this exercise, is examine the reason we're here in the first place.
A compromise cannot be made, when only one party intends to compromise at all.
Originally posted by matth
after everyone has been invited to participate is more fair than 5 or 6 people arguing in public and ignoring all else (including the actual topic at hand) and everyone else.
Originally posted by darcon
reply to post by pieman
I read his post, then put him on ignore.