Open Forum, June 7-12



Starting June 1, readers must comment on stories using a Facebook account. This forum has been created to allow registered users to continue online discussions under your existing profile. The open forum will be refreshed once a week to allow for easier commenting.

The forums will still be moderated by Columbian staff and our community guidelines and terms of service still apply.

Only Columbian staff members can create new forum threads.

Don't see a forum topic here that fits your comments? Suggest one here.



Just FYI. You can still find the other open forum (down a little) so one could either pick up the topics from that forum or begin new topics.


Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 7, 2011 at 3:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal

This forum below will remain. Right?

An Open Forum for Political Discussion

buckeye71 — June 7, 2011 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Yes, it remains. We're not trying to eliminate anything. But if you look down the road 6 months or a year you can see if we don't sort of "refresh" you'd have to wade through thousands of comments. So the forums remain and as we did today, we might even add to them.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 7, 2011 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Hey Lou, I read somewhere you were feeling "a change a comin". Just a thought here, did anybody come by and give you that "change" yet? Do you use adult pampers or are you still using those pull-ups?

hawkeye — June 7, 2011 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Mr Brancaccio

Will that forum be left intact or just the title? Will you be "refreshing" it also?

buckeye71 — June 7, 2011 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Not exactly sure what your question is buckeye. It's there, please take a look at it. So not sure what "refreshing" means in this context.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 7, 2011 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Yes. I know that forum is there today.

Will you "refresh" it except for the title? That means will you delete all the contributions and just leave the heading.


Yes, it remains. We're not trying to eliminate anything. But if you look down the road 6 months or a year you can see if we don't sort of "refresh" you'd have to wade through thousands of comments. So the forums remain and as we did today, we might even add to them.

buckeye71 — June 7, 2011 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal

There's no use getting after the Columbian for their choice on how they manage their website. It's theirs, plain and simple. As non-paying users, we can neither expect nor demand anything. Although I'd never go to the facebook method, I respect the Columbian's desire to do so while I don't understand it.

I do think if the anonymous users, such as myself, gave the Columbian some slack in this matter they'd probably capitulate somewhat making it a little bit better for all. Continuous and harsh attacks on the Columbian will do nothing. I'd like to see this site return to the format it was several years ago when posters could start their own "thread". That made for some very, very interesting and exciting discussions. But, oh well.....oops, that phrase has been coined. Sorry.

mrd — June 7, 2011 at 9 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I totally agree as I have said on the Political Forum. I'm the one who wrote that we are uninvited guests and made the comment about not arguing with those who buy their ink by the barrel.

I was just trying to find out if the are going to refresh/delete weekly. Can you help me out on that?

I think there are some contributions that might be interesting to those who find the forum for the first time.

buckeye71 — June 7, 2011 at 9:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal

I suggest you talk about the new facial recognition software that Facebook to getting ready to launch.

I am not the ultra paranoid type, but Facebook is looking more and more like the "1984" experience.
On another item Lou, why do you guys keep deleting my comments on the other side. I opened a Facebook page, and I have been appropriate. Is it because I will not post my picture on the account?...I wonder why I would not do that????? (Refer to above link to article regarding FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE!).

seamuscallan — June 8, 2011 at 7:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Allen, personally I think the most amazing aspect to the Facebook / Participant relationship is that once you post your "personal" content to the website they own it! Even if you delete your photos and information, Facebook has still saved it to their server. I watched a entertaining video on the Onion website about Facebook working for the CIA. Now I realize the Onion is an entertainment website full of satire, but it is interesting how art (if it can be called that) imitates life. Privacy and rights are crumbling at an alarming rate in America, and it concerns me that any institution, with journalism at its base, would assist that decomposition. What is next, will we no longer go to the polls and vote in private, why not just make a public vote through Facebook. After all it is not a real vote (or opinion) unless everyone knows who cast it.

seamuscallan — June 8, 2011 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Here's the thing guys. We have no interest in getting rid of the comments but I wouldn't guarantee that they'd be around forever more. These are like conversations to me and there aren't a lot of folks out there keeping all their conversations. Still there is no plan to get rid of them.

The Internet is wide open and still being understood. I'd suggest (I suggest this to our reporters and editors as well) if you want to make sure you see something tomorrow, copy and paste it to your e-mail.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 8, 2011 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal

I went against my better judgement & began posting here using Facebook. Today, I got an email from Libby Tucker, from the Columbian:

"Because your profile is locked down, we need to confirm you are who you say you are. Can you respond to this message with a phone number where we can contact you? If we don't hear from you in 24 hours we'll take you off the site. We're enforcing our real names policy. Thanks much."

Sorry, Libby. I don't think so. Invasion of my privacy stops right there.

willbridge — June 8, 2011 at 1:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Of course that's your choice Will. But as many people here have clearly said, faking a Facebook name can be done. So -- sorry -- we have to check.

We hear from just as many people -- if not more -- on the other side who say we need to check more people out who say they are someone they are not, on Facebook.

We're doing the best we can.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 8, 2011 at 1:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Okay. Fair enough argument I suppose. Count me in.

willbridge — June 8, 2011 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal

I still REALLY hate it. But my desire to make snarky comments towards you prevails. :)

willbridge — June 8, 2011 at 2:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal

We're doing the best we can.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 8, 2011 at 1:48 p.m.

Oh Lou, you overestimate yourself.

hawkeye — June 8, 2011 at 7:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 8, 2011 at 1:48 p.m
So Lou,
That must be why I posted on a Yakima Bears story this morning (my post was there), went back a bit ago and it was gone? What, do I need to come down to the office and show some ID? It's interesting that you are going to Facebook to allow commenters to see who they are talking to, but that you can just remove posts. Isn't that censorship on your part?

Jbruneel — June 9, 2011 at 11:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal

Does anyone know what the medals That Cash was wearing around his neck at the rally are for?

vancouvernative1975 — June 9, 2011 at 12:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal

I have a FB account, but I'm not willing to share my vast inside knowledge bank of all things local gov't with those who will just pretend that I don't know what I'm talking about; in addition to spreading my name around like wildfire, thus putting my job at risk. So neener neener. I'll share with those who will appreciate it.

Anyhow, I'd like to comment on the article about the Value motel. I would like to see it bull dozed or something of that nature. It doesn't help our (Vancouver) apperance or image any by having a run down roach motel just off the interstate. Obviously, the person who was told to bring it to code, doesn't give a rats rear end. I'd also like to point out that the ones who cry for Gov't to do something aout it, seem oddly simillar to the ones who want gov't to butt out of everything. Pick a stance and stay with it, sheesh!

Tired_of_the_Whining — June 9, 2011 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal

vancouvernative1975 — June 9, 2011 at 12:59 p.m.---special olympics?? Have no clue. It's the only bling he owns?

Tired_of_the_Whining — June 10, 2011 at 8:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Other than health and safety concerns, due to the public access to the building, it is none of the governments concern how they run their business.

frobert — June 10, 2011 at 10:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Those are the same false conservatives that call for more laws controlling peoples lives, and denial of rights to the individual. A true conservative believes in smaller less intrusive government and constitutional rights as a concrete fact.

frobert — June 10, 2011 at 12:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Letter: Where does all the money go?

I would guess the letter writer is referring to money raised for and spent on campaigns.

That money is spent on printers, newspapers, television and radio stations. Paying for travel and accommodations, renting convention centers and perhaps buying food and paying caterers. All of whom pay employees who pay taxes.

It is a natural transfer of wealth from one to another and is the way free markets work.

kn_dalai — June 10, 2011 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal

frobert @ 12:20-Where did you get your definition from? What is the source? What 'true conservative' politician represents your idea of a "true conservative", both past and present. What President have we had in your opinion that's been a 'true conservative'?

If the "false conservatives" outweigh the "true conservatives", doesn't that actually make your false ones true by definition? If one is classifying the majored belief of a party, I suggest that it receive due respect.

I suggest your definition, or your 'beliefs' are absolutely false. Not even remotely true.

Where did you get your definition?

nailingit — June 10, 2011 at 3:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Dictionary, to conserve - to maintain as original

frobert — June 10, 2011 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal

frobert-...and what is it they are truly conserving and who is it? Not the constitution...LOL...thanks for trying fro. It would help when those defining conservatism, and those who follow it, did so in context and specificity with regards to the conversation.

nailingit — June 10, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal

I believe Republicans subvert and conserve on the intent of the constitution, that we as a people should live freely, and wish that our country remained original before the constitution was adopted. For proof, look at what the house members have done since 2010, in their own districts as well as our country.

What people view as "conservatism" doesn't exist, and amounts to no less than self pricked freedom fighters trying to understand their existence, and cause everyone else to suffer at the hands of their incompetency.

nailingit — June 10, 2011 at 7:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal

After more than a week of this 'Facebook' posting the one glaring problem is this. So far your paper is the only one of the many I read throughout the week that has done this. I don't quite know why you decided to go this way but that's your choice. One thing that I see is a homogenization of the comments. Another thing is why should I unlock some of my parameters to be allowed to post. I don't feel the need to open my account to some. I only use Facebook to talk to my grand-kids.

The posters who use Facebook to comment on articles will use it more to get their form of propaganda to the readers. That's fine but if that was your only goal then you render you publication to be one-sided and pretty much meaningless. That's not fair to other readers who may think that you have a responsibility to all of us who read it. Again it is your dime and I understand that.

I looked around papers across the U.S. and also local TV station websites and not one, as I said, uses this format. These papers and stations have a decidedly different outlook about their posters. The rules are pretty much the same but it allows for more input. The people are more colorful in their comments and some are down right funny. You have, on the other hand, lost some of the character that your publication had and it's beginning to reflect that.

When certain posters got out of hand you swatted them. I have only been censored on this website. My views on rapers, wife beaters, and murderers got me that. That's alright though. More and more I see comments who validate my position on them. Our society is changing with the times to reflect those kind of views.

I have a feeling my attitude my be one-sided but if any others out there feel the same by all means say your piece. It may have some validity, or not. I can get pretty much get all the news around here, and comment as well, from many other sources. So those of us confined to the backwaters of this website I say good day and good luck. I may be back ... or not.

JohnCasey — June 11, 2011 at 9:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal

I have been swatted twice. Once for using hyphens to convey a word meaning poopy..(is poopy to harsh a word C ?)

And the other time almost a year ago while counseling a poster named bobbo.

Sometimes it's hard for people to look within themselves without the help of a colonoscopy. Just ask Larry Craig and so many others that filled their void and acted on displaced anxiety, while denying they would rather be a bagger at the local swaggering hole.

nailingit — June 11, 2011 at 11:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal

There was an ol' bagger, that walked with a swagger, and fidgeted with fingers in kind...

His role as gagger, caused him to be a tagger, on these threads whilst he wrestled with his mind.


nailingit — June 11, 2011 at 11:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal

1,600 pot plants in Vancouver valued at $2,400,000. 1,050 in Skamania County valued at $300,000 per the articles.

Is pot that much cheaper in Stevenson? Even at $4.00/gal, it's worth the trip!

mrd — June 11, 2011 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 11, 2011 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal

RE: David Madore files for Vancouver port position.

Poster on FB Gary A. Brewer says: "“I would urge all voters to read Brian Wolfe's resume.”

Just where can one find that resume?

That Wolfe has been a well recognized local attorney is obvious. As is his role as former city attorney for Battleground and Ridgefield. Perhaps that resume would indicate a little too much affinity for government as opposed to an outsider such as Madore.

Please refer to my post of kn_dalai — June 10, 2011 at 7:54 p.m. [][1]


kn_dalai — June 11, 2011 at 6:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal

article says it all. no fish in Battleground Lake, unless you wanna catch stockers. Jeez, ain't fishin' great? Wanna catch ocean run salmon or steeelhead? go to alaska or the mid-west, yup the mid-west. their runs, as artificial as they are, are far superior, as in Lake Superior, to ours. Of course Alaska is only 1000 miles further.

mrd — June 12, 2011 at 9:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal

I suggest you talk about the new facial recognition software that Facebook to getting ready to launch.

seamuscallan — June 8, 2011 at 7:15 a.m.

This is why I consider it ethically questionable for the Columbian newspaper to demand that commenters on their stories use Facebook to connect. Apparently they either don't give a damn about users' privacy concerns, or they are in collusion with Facebook. I suspect the former, I fear the latter.

DanielWaterhouse — June 14, 2011 at 1:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal

Forum Login