Suggest a forum topic

Published:

 

Starting June 1, Columbian.com 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 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.


141 comments

Comments

I don't do Facebook?
Sorry to see this change, the reasons given for this don't make any differences from what you had with the old system.

You think signing up to Facebook is different? A name can be made up, any photo uploaded, so why?

vtman — June 1, 2011 at 12:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Echo echo echo . . .

van_native — June 1, 2011 at 12:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Have to agree with the above. It's pretty easy to remain anonymous on the internet. It's just going to take up a little extra server space somewhere, to make another free facebook account.

2cents — June 1, 2011 at 12:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Pretty sneaky that if you're signed into facebook and come over to columbian.com to read one of the articles that's been posted to the Columbian facebook page, your reply is all ready to go with facebook. But that's not the sneaky part. Most of the other websites do that, too. The sneaky part is that the little tickybox to "Post to facebook" is already checked.

Might want to do something about that, Columbian. I suspect that even your happy news crowd won't cotton to that.

van_native — June 1, 2011 at 1:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


It looks as though they have deleted all the previous comments on the articles. This is my last comment, and I suppose that many others will be lost as well. So much for community dialogue, Columbian.

Striker991 — June 1, 2011 at 8:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


So far the Facebook log-in is working better than I expected. Sure hope you all eventually give it a chance. Thanks.!

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 1, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


So far the Facebook log-in is working better than I expected. Sure hope you all eventually give it a chance. Thanks.!

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 1, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

Really? Yes, I know I said that would be my last comment, but, really? Controversial articles and opinion pieces, once loaded with comments, now none. The Greg Jayne blog post on the County Commissioners re: the contract with the Bears would have been loaded with comments. Now, none.

It appears to me that the only comments you are getting of any number are on the articles about converting to facebook comments.

This is what you expected? Really?

Striker991 — June 1, 2011 at 9:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Facebook sucks and so does this new comment system. I refuse to have anything to do with facebook as I don't care to be spied on and tracked. If you don't care about your privacy,
have at it and good luck.

fauxnoise_netjerk — June 1, 2011 at 10:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm gone too, Striker. I refuse to do anything with facebook.

fauxnoise_netjerk — June 1, 2011 at 10:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Most of my comments are related to medicinal cannabis and/or the so called War on Drugs. Typically, I'll read my morning paper (the dead tree one) pick up an article, come to the machine and comment. We've had a subscription for 20 years (+\-). I'm reconsidering.

I -understand- there was a problem with the previous comments. Anyone reading them knows that. I don't believe this current method is the way to deal with that. I don't Facebook. I have any intention of Facebooking.

The subject of drugs is very controversial in this country. A year or so ago I submitted a "Letter to the Editor" on the subject. The morning it appeared my phone rang. The gentleman on the line stated he didn't care for my views. (I'm in the book)

It shook the misses up. She wondered if a brick through the window would be next.

I don't use vitriol in my arguments. I don't call people names... I use facts and science. Even still, it's my opinion that commenting under my (real) name is akin to painting a target on my back.

Whatever the purpose of the Facebook thing is, one thing it will accomplish is stifling the comments of a level-headed repealist (yeah, I made the word up).

I suppose that frustrates me.
Oh well, it's your ball and bat, Lou.
I reckon I can still comment -here-?
For now.

Drift — June 1, 2011 at 10:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Striker991 & others not joining Facebook:

Scroll down under Forums to:
An Open Forum for Political Discussion

You can continue to use your Columbian Login. Also, I don't think you will be limited to responding to LTTE or articles.

buckeye71 — June 1, 2011 at 10:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


So far the Facebook log-in is working better than I expected. Sure hope you all eventually give it a chance. Thanks.!

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 1, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

Because you're getting comments from the sheeple herd, I would imagine.

van_native — June 1, 2011 at 11:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


So far, there have been much fewer comments, most of which consist of cheerleading and desperate attempts at reassuring each other that what they are doing is right rather than wrong. Of course, a handful of people can only cheer for so long before they have to move on to saying something of substance or quieting down; most will do the latter. Even comments so far that don't consist of cheering contain very little substance. When you think about it, that's only natural. The smartest and most cautious people will outright refuse to be abused by the system, and anyone else who is intelligent and/or cares about their future will severely measure anything they say.

There will be very few multiple paragraph comments in the future. Get used to reading bland one and two-liners that don't really amount to much, because only a crazy person would take the risks involved in saying anything more.

JiveSoulBro — June 1, 2011 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Get used to reading bland one and two-liners that don't really amount to much, because only a crazy person would take the risks involved in saying anything more.

JiveSoulBro — June 1, 2011 at 11:32 a.m.

JSB, this is what America has become in this young century. I'm glad I won't be aboveground for very many more years with the way things are moving now. Or maybe someone will, unbeknownst to me pass the koolaid, and I'll go hand out daisies and platitudes via facebook.

van_native — June 1, 2011 at 11:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


yeah, so why can't I login using my facebook account now? good work buddy!

ireadthepapers — June 1, 2011 at 1:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


JSB, you are so right, not many comments at all.

soapbox4u — June 1, 2011 at 2:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


67 total facebook comments when I just checked. Heck, I know a couple of posters here who could post that many comments during their morning coffee.

soapbox4u — June 1, 2011 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Soapbox4u, the comment you refer to contained the qualifying phrase "so far" and was accurate at the time it was posted, 11:32am.

As we head into late afternoon, most stories still have no comments outside of those who work for the Columbian. In fact, formerly popular comment sections such as Editor's Choice columns, Press Talk, and Opinion all remain blank or have one posting outside of Columbian employees.

Still, very little of substance has been said...we're just left with a cheerleading squad, some emboldened high rollers and public officials, and some unfortunate Columbian staffers who've been forced to tow the company line and apparently even required to join Facebook themselves. Very, very sad.

Does this change eliminate some past problems? Absolutely. Does it also eliminate all of the color, personality, and a lot of the thoughtful posters? Most definitely. I'd rather take the good with the bad, than be left with propaganda and platitudes.

JiveSoulBro — June 1, 2011 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I'd love to stick around, but husband is supposedly headed to KC tomorrow and right now hellzapoppin in Kansas AND Massachusetts with more damn tornadoes.

I'll check back in later.

Lollipops, unicorns and rainbows to all.

van_native — June 1, 2011 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Topics topics....something not being discussed......

How about a country so filled with hate and disillusionment, that Sarah Palin has a chance at being president? LOL..not LOL..lol...not lol..

nailingit — June 1, 2011 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well, welcome to the "White Bread, Homogenized, Newly Cleaned and Pressed Columbian". Don't go looking for any controversial comments because nobody's going to want to be put in that position.

hawkeye — June 1, 2011 at 9:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


...too late hawk. Larimer dropped a load on the C's new carpet!

nailingit — June 1, 2011 at 9:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The only reason I use Facebook at all is it is a way to keep up with my grand-kids. I read and comment on some of the nations biggest newspapers in the nation. They, so far, have not forced people to use Facebook exclusively. Some just have the icons available to post to it as well as other social network sites. If posters wanted there letters or thought posted all they have to do is click on them.

I think the Columbian has shot itself in the foot. I have never posted anything on this site that I haven't said in public. The views posted by me and a lot of others will be trimmed down. No doubt. I did notice that comments to the LTTE have gone down before this. When the separation of the letters appeared it took the posters back a little. No more snarky comments about other posters. That was good because I was tired of using the gray bar. The discourse was getting out of hand.

One more thing. The hot button issues of the day will not see many posters who did have thoughtful input because they just don't feel the need or want to post to Facebook. If you post to any social network you are, in fact, painting a target on your back. The young people who use any social network have no moral guidance anymore. They fail to understand that anything you post stays there forever and people use it to find out about you. It's hard to erase things you posted in your youth on these sites. Privacy is not overrated and some of us want to remain private.

JohnCasey — June 2, 2011 at 7:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


We expect it to take a couple of months before the number of comments begin to approach what we had before. No change is easy for any of us. The Columbian included.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 2, 2011 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


You just don't get it, do you Lou? Even though you want everyone to be honest and open, people are afraid to post their real names except for people like Larimer who doesn't care that people know he is a right wing, tea party freak. That's just him, that's the way he is. Everybody else is a little more careful about making someone mad.

I guess if you don't care how many people comment, or about actually sharing real thoughts and ideas, you have done the "right" thing. I really think you've made a huge mistake.

hawkeye — June 2, 2011 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Many of us have made a lot of valid points, but the Columbian marches forward. Since I don't believe Lou is stupid, there is only one conclusion...maybe he has no choice in the matter. Based on things that have been said by various Columbian staff, I think the decision was ultimately made at the top for political and financial reasons, and in that case, it is in Lou's best interest to go with the flow and make it work.

Hawkeye, in this case, I don't think they care about quality or quantity of comments, or the sharing of real ideas. It's all about keeping important people happy, and making money through Facebook. It appears that the decision was made that even inane comments serve as advertisements for the Columbian on Facebook, and that is more valuable than an actual representation of the community, and quality discussion. Goodwill was tossed aside in favor of the hopes of making money and appeasing a certain element of the community. This element is very interested in inflating themselves and encountering as little opposition as possible, which is facilitated quite nicely by this Facebook requirement.

JiveSoulBro — June 2, 2011 at 9:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


See, Jive, you got it right. It's the difference between being a "journalistic venture" AKA "newspaper" and a money making enterprise. Guess they have lost sight of that. And even though I live in Battle Ground, I think I will subscribe to the Oregonian.

hawkeye — June 2, 2011 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


JiveSoulBro @ 9:02

May I please bestow upon you the bi-annual nailingit award. The award is meaningless to most and understandably so. Just wanted to say thanks for succinctly articulating the best rational choice for the thought processes concerning the new policy. It's not easy to make a hard boiled egg out of one that is already scrambled. Your words and my brain. Thanks for the write.

nailingit — June 2, 2011 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Bye Bye Columbian.....I refuse to be a puppet to Facebook or any other business that forces FB down my throat....

sunny1 — June 2, 2011 at 10:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I created a Facebook account, and I have been reading the posts. Thus far, the new Facebook format has created an interesting dynamic. The most rude, inappropriate, and lowbrow comments I have read have come from several individuals that were complaining about the prior format of commenting. In fact, I find it interesting that several of these individuals, that obviously have hate in their heart, also self-promote as Christian valued. I find this offensive, but I try not to judge. Although almost all of my previous posts on the Columbian are full of satire, that does not reflect a lack of serious opinion. Rather, I find it ridiculous to have an argument with someone on a comment board. I believe that most rational and critically thinking individuals will choose to not engage in the new format, and the majority that choose to participate will be the extreme who have developed their identity steeped in their prejudice. That reminds me of a quote by William Yeats; "All empty souls tend toward extreme opinions". I have been entertained by the prior comments, and I have enjoyed reading the developing personalities in an anonymous format. The anonymous comments have allowed honesty, and unfortunately the ability to be inappropriate and hurtful at times. Although honestly, if an anonymous comment on a website is that powerful in your life, then perhaps you should not be participating. In conclusion, thank you Columbian for the prior entertainment. - Seamus

seamuscallan — June 2, 2011 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The few comments made by facebook logins seems to be of a higher standard than those made in the past by the reside "posters anonymus". It may work. Time will tell.

soapbox4u — June 2, 2011 at 12:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Momma says facebook is the Devil!

vancouvernative1975 — June 2, 2011 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The REAL reason this Facebook requirement was made is due to pressure from Influential movers & shakers in town. "Vancouver Vitality", or whatever the "Couv Mafia" calls itself.
There have been far too many negative comments here about their precious CRC, and light rail in particular. By the way, Willamette Week has an excellent expose this week on the CRC. Be sure to read it:

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17566-a_bridge_too_false.html

When we pointed out major blunders such as the Hilton & Amphitheater fiascoes, our local politicians & the businesses they are in bed with were enraged. The straw that broke the camel's back was when we posters pointed out the folly of the new stadium being proposed. How dare we speak up against baseball! After all, it gave some rationalization to placing light rail near Clark College.
Yes, dear posters, we truly ruffled some feathers that have a grandiose dream for our city. It's just that some of us can see that WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. Well, now we are silenced...unless we risk intimidation from the "Couv Mafia".

willbridge — June 3, 2011 at 2:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Lou, I just looked and your Farcebook experiment is a HUGE success. I think I counted at least FOUR different posters today. What a great idea.

Have a nice day.

hawkeye — June 3, 2011 at 1:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OK, here's some news, Shaq is retiring at the ripe old age of 39. Personally, I think he's about 5 years too late. I hope he saved his money.

hawkeye — June 3, 2011 at 3:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The ship is sinking!!

soapbox4u — June 3, 2011 at 6:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift @ 10:34 am: Your post caught my eye and rings so true with how I feel about this Facebook thing. My privacy is important to me. My comments are constructive and respectful. The Columbian dismantled their relationship with an entire group of loyal readers like that! Poof! Blink of an eye! We own a business and I swear, if we had treated our clients this way, we would be bankrupt. I think the C is struggling to find a way to catch more readers in its net. They have grossly misread who their base is in an attempt to charm their way into a new market. So go ahead, C, and showcase your Facebook pages, encourage Facebook-linked commentary, but why leave us out of the fun, too? You have told us, essentially, that we are second-class customers and can't be trusted to play nice. So here we are, in our own segregated playground. Shame on you. Really.

JiveSoulBro @ 3:32 PM: Right on!

soapbox4U: Glad to see you on here, too! Facebook is not eliminating the snarky comments, just the number of comments, as you so wisely note!

Keep in touch, folks.

manthou — June 4, 2011 at 7:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou, I thought it humorous that in a return email from Libby she stated the facebook thing was no more compromising (safety) than a LTTE.

The misses grimaces these days when I write a LTTE.

Drift — June 4, 2011 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift: Which current study did Libby cite to you as the support for her safety reassurances? What rich life experiences has she had in her short existence that would give her the wisdom to quell your concerns? :)

The jury is out on Facebook and other social media. Like cancer risk from cell phones, we are going to reap the "rewards" from this technology down the road, after we have lapped up the kool-aid like lemmings to the sea and the damage is done. The judicial system is already shaping legal precedents based on lawsuits that eminate from Facebook fodder. Companies are creating social media policies to try to create cleaner boundaries, as if it is even possible to do so. Participate at your own risk. I chose not to, like you.

I understand your wife's concerns about personal safety in these times. We all have our reasons to be cautious.

manthou — June 4, 2011 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift, manthou and others not using FB with Columbian:

I posted this earlier and you might be interested.

Scroll down under Forums to: An Open Forum for Political Discussion

You can continue to use your Columbian Login. We're having some interesting conversations. I have not used Ignore User once.

buckeye71 — June 4, 2011 at 11:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


OK, Lou and Columbian, I ignored the complaints of other people who objected to the Facebook transition and created my own account. I set privacy settings to most stringent and sat back and waited to see what happened. And I don't like it. I've got several hundred people I might know listed, many who I've never heard of. I clicked on several, and finally figured out what was going on. Facebook has gone through my Hotmail Saved e-mails and screened to see if they have Facebook accounts. If they do, then I get them added to my might know listing. And then Facebook goes through their Friends listing and also posts these people to my page. So, if I chose to, I could pretty much spy on my wife, son, co-worker, and a few other people I know merely by tracking who they communicate with.

Sorry, but I don't like this. I would have no problem putting my entire real name on these submissions, but I'm not willing to play the "my life is an open book" game that it appears using Facebook will result in. So, I deactivated my Facebook account. And if any of you more savvy users can let me know how to delete it entirely, I'd appreciate it.

roger — June 5, 2011 at 7:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hey manthou, good to see you!

You know what? One must log off the facebook account to comment here and vice-versa. Too funny!

soapbox4u — June 5, 2011 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hi, soap! It's all about contamination containment! We don't want an exchange of cooties or ideas between the elite and the riff raff! :D

I have a feeling that the Facebook commenters would join us on the dark side without logging off if they could.

What if The Columbian gave a party and everyone left early for the bash across the street?

______________________________________________________

Columbian Staff: Please consider adding a Forum topic for the Columbia River Crossing project. Thanks.

manthou — June 5, 2011 at 8:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I know, I know...I said I wouldn't post ever again but I just had to make my voice be heard on this one (maybe even beyond this one). I have to support Manthou's request for a Forum Topic on the Columbia River Crossing Project. There was a lot of excellent information provided by several posters which was lost in the transition and could be regenerated right here, right now with a CRC Forum column. Until then...

goldenoldie — June 6, 2011 at 7:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Lou, that "Oh well!" was uncalled for, rude and arrogant on your part. In fact it's down right disgusting to see an editor act in such a juvenile way.

ELISI — June 6, 2011 at 8:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


To the editor of our local newspaper>>>Wow.......for someone that encourages civil discussion you seem to do all you can to provoke otherwise.

Should we ban together and petition the owner for a new editor?

It's obvious where many of the "problems" have originated.

Lou, btw, how many avatars does your staff now have and did have in order to stir things up "anonymously"?

Why poke and provoke needlessly? Why don't you grab a vacuum and suck up the mess in the smoking section of FB. At least you would be doing something constructive.

nailingit — June 6, 2011 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Mister Lou Brancaccio, Mister *Fair Reporting Editor in Chief of the Columbian*(gag me, please), I see you are still the same old son of a...well, I won't insult your mother on this one. She's not here to defend herself much like the folks in the forum while you allow the likes of Bob Larimer to continue with his trash talk. You are so out of touch with the community, MISTER B. You and your ICC-supporting boss have proven to me without a doubt that you are passifying the elite, manipulative segment of society which has allowed our economic climate in our city/county/state/country to drop to it's knees. I call that kissing a..! You know damned well why I wasn't posting on Facebook and I wanted to give it another go for your flailing piece of a rag since this was the only avenue through the Columbian. You have allowed the one-sided insulting banter on Facebook to attack those who could not go to Facebook to say their sh*t and vice versa. Definitely not civility. So Sir, I'm giving you a taste of your OWN civility and the duties your "webmaster" is clearly manipulating in order to deaden even the forum section of your news rag. You sir, have proven to me just why I should avoid your elitist rear end-kissing, manipulative piece of supermarket tabloid which will only be utilized to line the bottom of my bird cage from today on. I have discovered multiple websites based on our county which truly show the news and events without your garbage, your popups and without the need for facebook apps.

So MISTER Lou Brancaccio, Mister Transplant....censor me all you'd like. Remove me and ALL my comments from the Columbian if you have to. I could CARE LESS!!! I'll go where I know my voice will be heard without having to endure the problems YOU have generated with your "expertise." You sir, have caused all the mayhem. Look in the mirror...that is, if it hasn't shattered already.

Good Riddance!

goldenoldie — June 6, 2011 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Goldenoldie...say its not true that you are leaving the Columbian website just because you do not want to be judged by people that do not understand your posts on Facebook! I looked so forward to finding out your real name, place of employment, all of your friends and family, likes or dislikes, favorite TV shows, favorite music, IP address, where you attended school, photos.....well you understand. I may not have agreed with all of your prior comments, but I certainly agree with you on this one. I love the woeful ignorance by the Columbian staff, I have even seen an e-mail from the CS asking how this new Facebook format has silenced rational thought. I didn't bother with a response to explain that those who work for the Government, State, City, or with the public do not want our opinions, even the nice and respectful ones, posted without an anonymous format. Could you imagine a co-worker, boss, supervisor, or insane extremist taking issue with a comment that is too left or right? Well, what are you going to do...the best I could do is cancel my Columbian delivery, complain a little on the website, then slowly lose interest. Take care!

seamuscallan — June 6, 2011 at 10:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Allen, lets face it, he doesn't care.
This, IMO is just another way to completely shut all of us who disagree with him, CRC down. They want nothing but their ilk posting. All yes people to whatever their ilk wants and to he.. with the rest of us.

ELISI — June 6, 2011 at 10:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Lou, Lou, that was one uncalled for comment in response to Golden's post. What were you thinking?

luvithere — June 6, 2011 at 10:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Lou, you are hilarious...please keep it coming. This is the only thing that keeps me coming back. I need to go to a meeting right now, but I will be back in about 2 hours. Please have a new "respectful" zinger when I return. Thanks Lou!

seamuscallan — June 6, 2011 at 10:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Lou is walking down the street, shaking hands of robotic yes-men and kissing their babies. It's all smiles in this Facebook victory parade, until about 400 meters in from the start. An aide quietly informs him of an important development, and Lou does his best to discretely leave the parade path, opens the sewer grate on a side street, and drops down into the darkness below.

A dim light illuminates a room filled with a large group of those annoying, free-thinking, non-conformist types. Lou shakes his head in disgust, then lays eyes on his target. With a sarcastic comment and sinister cackle, he puts the boots to Goldenoldie and makes sure she knows her place in this dark world.

Moments later, the victory parade continues for the entire remaining 800 meters. The robots are happy and so are the parade organizers, and as a result, Lou knows everything's gonna be alright.

JiveSoulBro — June 6, 2011 at 10:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Counting on the placation of his giant ego...

He provokes in order to be appeased.

Treating his customer base as a foe...

While the news becomes nothing more than a tease.

nailingit — June 6, 2011 at 11:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


evermore....evermore...baaRRRAAK!

nailingit — June 6, 2011 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 6, 2011 at 8:32 a.m*

And a far more appropriate comment would have been on the lines of when that forum topic will get a thread or why not.

That would be a much more appropriate comment for the likes of Larimer given that he's been bounced out of these forums more than once.

mr_basil_seal — June 6, 2011 at 1 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Lou, that remark directed at GO spoke volumes. Any credibility you hoped to preserve through the Facebook transition just went out the window. Shame on you.

willbridge — June 6, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


sniff...sniff....I say,..I say...I say son, do I smell somethin a burnin? ...hmmmm smells like one editors breeches on fire to me...

ELISI — June 6, 2011 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Manthou, I will go one step further than calling it cootie containment (albeit cute). It is just another type of segregation.

soapbox4u — June 6, 2011 at 2:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OmG such drama.

soapbox4u — June 6, 2011 at 3 p.m. ( | suggest removal


soapbox4U: It's called, "Let's you and him fight" and it was well-played, like a master, by the editor. :)

manthou — June 6, 2011 at 3:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Why has the Columbian become a pimp for Facebook? $$$$$$$$$$????

vancouvernative1975 — June 6, 2011 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Goldie was one of the nice people on the old site. Even when we disagreed, she always did so in a respectful manner. This comment by Lou was truly classless.

roger — June 6, 2011 at 4:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie-I responded to your e-mail thru the Columbian today. It was returned with the message that it wasn't delivered because it wasn't forwarded within 3 hours.

Not trusting the C to forward, let me just say I wish you the best and hope that you post again.

Take care...

nailingit — June 6, 2011 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


So much has been read into those words "Oh well". Funny thing, I didn't hear how those two words were articulated, did you? The wild conjectures following those words are pretty amusing and best illustrate part of the reasoning behind the arrival of facebook.

soapbox4u — June 6, 2011 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


To bad the Editor made the comment and did not explain himself. Nothing new here. Lou has a propensity for Columbian headline grabbing.

Wild conjectures? Then they should be reigned in with a comment from the instigator, that would be the responsible thing to do.

If making drive-by comments and leaving those that could be offended to guess as to what was meant, was the reasoning for using facebook...no wonder it's all screwed up!!!

But hey...the vacuum is broken anyway..right?

nailingit — June 6, 2011 at 5:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I think it was you, soapbox, that once wisely noted: "Too bad there isn't a sarcasm font." Too true. Too true. I think the emoticon used in the offending comment was a "wink."
That usually means good-natured teasing. But who knows, cause we're tapping away at the keys and staring into the glow of an LCD screen and second guessing it all.

Interpretation is difficult and it is easy to assume the worse because that is the culture that is rewarded throughout our reality TV lives today: us vs them; you vs me; left vs right; public vs private; young vs old; winners vs losers, etc.

We'd all do better, I think, if we shut the laptops, stopped worrying about "virtual relationships" and re-established and nurtured the real kind. I include myself in the "we." But that takes effort and real demands and it is soooo much easier to do otherwise.

There is a lot of attention to be had in stirring the pot by both sides. For those lurking quietly as observers, it has to be entertaining as hell! And that, my friend, keeps 'em coming back for more.

Peace.

manthou — June 6, 2011 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


If this is what Lou was trying to express, I'd say goldenoldie could take it as a subtle insult:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=oh%20well

willbridge — June 6, 2011 at 5:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye?

As of 7:38 pm, both of GO's comments (7:51 a.m. and 9:33 a.m.) are still there.

Not sure what you are referring to?

kn_dalai — June 6, 2011 at 7:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


kn_dalai — June 6, 2011 at 7:39 p.m

They were gone for a little, and now her pictures are back to blank.

Well said Allen, that goes double for me. GO is well respected here and Lou, not so much.

hawkeye — June 6, 2011 at 9:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Allen — June 6, 2011 at 9:48 p.m.

You’re a fool and you’re a drunk. And I probably have more understanding and compassion for you than most of these characters who think they’re broadminded.

I have in no way disrespected GO. My post of 7:39 p.m. asked a simple question and nothing more.

Your suspicion that KN Dalai is Lou is ludicrous. Go to bed bud.

Hey…since you seem to finally know how to post a link: tell everyone, what worthless blog site you got that phony quote from. You know what I'm talking about.

kn_dalai — June 6, 2011 at 10:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


How about a topic on the future of old downtown Vancouver? What exactly is the vision for this area? I'm having a hard time understanding how planners are expecting to fill an upscale waterfront residential and business complex that will sit right next to the industrial and shipping operations of the Port. What will running light rail up Main to McLoughlin do for the shops currently there? Do parking garages contribute to the livability of an area? What about all the people who invested in restoring homes on streets like Columbia going toward Fourth Plain - does all the proposed development and freeway construction detract from or improve their quality of life? There are several directions this conversation could run in.

roger — June 7, 2011 at 7:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, I've created a new forum topic on downtown Vancouver. You may also be interested in the conversation on our story today about the City Council's decision to put new parking limits on disabled drivers. It's sparked a conversation about downtown businesses. http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/ju...

Libby Clark — June 7, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I see Lou's rude & uncalled for "oh, well" remark has been quietly removed. No apology. No explanation. Nuthin. How 'bout it, Libby? The boss man told ya to hush it up, didn't he? Even if someone else besides your staff clicked on suggest removal, I think Lou owes us (and certainly goldenoldie) an apology.I, for one don't intend to forget about it. I'd sure like to bring it to Mr. Campbell's attention, as well.

willbridge — June 7, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


It looks like you have to take the mark in order to participate in that conversation. LOL

No deal.

Quite scary, the number of people who have given up on their right to privacy. Some probably aren't bright enough to realize what they've done, though.

playa — June 7, 2011 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Lighten up guys. I've kidded Golden on and off for months on this topic. Did you miss the ;-) I put at the end of the comment? I took it down because I was surprised how misinterpreted it was. Golden is one of my favorite commenters on the site. I've said that several times in public. She still is. On occasion she has said she would comment no further on a story ... then she would. Or she would say she would no longer post on our site... then she did.

So I did the ;-) And made note of it. Meant no harm.

Hope this helps.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 7, 2011 at 1:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


And I apologize Golden.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 7, 2011 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Face it, Mr. Editor in chief, she sounded mighty insulted in her response, & you're lookin like the south end of a horse goin north.

willbridge — June 7, 2011 at 2:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


You're right will. And that's reason enough to apologize. golden is a strong poster. With good ideas. A good person.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 7, 2011 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Good for you, sir.

willbridge — June 7, 2011 at 2:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


yes, lou she is.

perhaps you can learn something from her.

like not selling your professional ethics.

btw, you gonna erase *this* post i wrote too? or is it safe because it's not on the comments page....

DeeLittle — June 7, 2011 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yep. I've always enjoyed conversing with her. Very bright. And, yes, I could learn much from golden. Actually I've learned quite a bit from many posters. Many good ideas.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — June 7, 2011 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Here are my words of advice for all (not that you've asked me):

There is mutual grace and redemption in giving and accepting an apology.

For the person offering a heart-felt apology, it allows you to be human and reject further defensiveness.

For the person who accepts the apology, it gives you an opportunity be generous to a vulnerable person without rubbing their nose in your wound.

Win/Win

Who says this forum is useless? :-) (Warm Smile)

manthou — June 7, 2011 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 6, 2011 at 5:17 p.m

Goldenoldie wanted me to let you know she has read your comment and I says "same to you!

ELISI — June 7, 2011 at 5:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Libby, I would suggest a forum on privacy: How to Promote and Maintain your Privacy and Anonymity 101. I see all these snarky remarks on privacy and facebook, yet a number of people commenting here have divulged so much information about themselves willingly. Their heritage, marital status, number of children, family situations, addictions, recoveries, gender, favorite hobbies, favorite music, favorite anythings, pet peeves, political views, education, general location within the Vancouver area, and even mental and health afflicitions. The list of "personal stuff" is almost endless to what has been posted here. TMI = too much information. Transparency works best with glass.

soapbox4u — June 7, 2011 at 6:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


ELISI-Domo arigato.

nailingit — June 7, 2011 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

Well I would say You are welcome back in Japanese, but the filter says to watch my mouth! The words "s--t" are not allowed here.

So..Dou itashi mash-te

ELISI — June 8, 2011 at 12:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Lou, you would make an excellent politician.

seamuscallan — June 8, 2011 at 6:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Soapbox,

It doesn't matter how much is divulged, unless you are strapped to your real name via Facebook. Or unless you give out enough information that someone who doesn't know you can still pinpoint who you are.

Also, consider that a lot of information "revealed" by anonymous posters could very well be BS. I am the proud parent of 3 children and live in Hazel Dell. I have an addiction to tator tots, I like to fly my small plane, I'm a black belt, I have 2 degrees, and I absolutely love rap music, the more gangsta, the better.

All false.

playa — June 8, 2011 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Yes, and you have mud for brains.

soapbox4u — June 8, 2011 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


BTW, most internet users can be pinpointed by one good computer tech with a little ambition.

soapbox4u — June 8, 2011 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I'll match my brain against yours anytime, sport. I don't need any BTW from you, there ain't a thing you can say that I don't already know or can't refute.

One good computer tech can only determine an IP, nothing more. There could be a whole network of people behind that IP. Don't try tech talk with me, you WILL fail.

playa — June 8, 2011 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Are you serious? Get a life!!

soapbox4u — June 8, 2011 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Over a period of months, I don't spend my time looking for chances to call people silly things like "mud for brains"

It's clear who needs a life. LOL!

playa — June 8, 2011 at 2:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


consider that a lot of information "revealed" by anonymous posters could very well be BS. I am the proud parent of 3 children and live in Hazel Dell. I have an addiction to tator tots, I like to fly my small plane, I'm a black belt, I have 2 degrees, and I absolutely love rap music, the more gangsta, the better. All false. playa — June 8, 2011 at 9:16 a.m.
I'll match my brain against yours anytime, sport. I don't need any BTW from you, there ain't a thing you can say that I don't already know or can't refute. One good computer tech can only determine an IP, nothing more. There could be a whole network of people behind that IP. Don't try tech talk with me, you WILL fail. playa — June 8, 2011 at 1:17 p.m
I agree, you certainly illustrate your point so well, good job!! FYI a playa: a desert basin with no outlet which periodically fills with water to form a temporary lake, it reminded of your thought process.

soapbox4u — June 8, 2011 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Woke up this morning, made more money in my first hour of work than soapbox4u will make all day (quite possibly in a couple of days) and then read something rather amusing, in a pathetic sort of way...

Was that your attempt at wit? Cute. Perhaps you should just go back to your primary sport, taking cheap shots at women. As I alluded to before, on the day that my life consists of attacking people unprovoked in an online forum (like you) is the day that I'll worry about getting a life. I like to treat people with the respect that they show to others, and get cocky and obnoxious with schmucks who show none.

You're not intellectually equipped for a quarrel with me, sunshine. Now kindly sod off, before I have to really work you over. LOL I suppose every online discussion has to have a right proper tosser, such as yourself, but you seem to take this stuff a bit too seriously. I'll happily have fun at your expense, when I have free moments. When someone comes looking for trouble, I happen to find it amusing to turn it around on them.

playa — June 9, 2011 at 7:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Might I suggest a topic such as legalized prostitution. The pros and cons. Recognizing and regulating an industry that already exists in order to serve the publics general welfare.

nailingit — June 9, 2011 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I have a legal question for all of you armchair lawyers.

If a cop is doing something illegal (regardless of how illegal it is) in order to catch someone else breaking the law, is the result of the act negated?

I saw a cop, illegally parked, in order to get a good spot to run radar. Does that make the tickets he wrote null and void?

hawkeye — June 9, 2011 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey hawk...I don't believe cops have any guidelines, rules or laws they are constricted to.

I'm guessing the severity of the laws being broken by those in the public trust weighs heavily in the courts balanced with the crime involved. Entrapment doesn't seem to exist. Maybe frobert can weigh in. If a cop kills a prostitute to get into the thoughts feelings and mind of a serial killer who preys on such, should he or she be held accountable or chalk it up to OJT? As strange as the scenario I presented is, it's not that far of a stretch. Depends on how pervasive the local PD is. Where I grew up we had a gang of cops doing drive-by's on gang members in unmarked cars. Only one cop went to prison for it, while others were implicated to include the local chief of polices son who was a cop, who was driving the car in the case that was being tried. He got off! Last I heard he was being taken to civil court and was getting sued by the parents of the kids the cop shot and killed in this case. One was killed and one or two were injured.One of many, many cases involving extreme corruption in our nations PD's.

That's why it's so important to nip corruption in the bud. Are the cops in the VPD still getting laid while working undercover against prostitution on our dime? The Columbian ran a story about that a few months ago. I've seen what a lack of good leadership in the police force can do to a community, I hope VPD has a good chief and deals with the pervasive crap that exists in law enforcement in a positive way.

nailingit — June 9, 2011 at 10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Your mud hole in nothing but that. You can say all you like, puff up your chest with "I AM" "I CAN" statements. Your statements hold nothing to the real world.

soapbox4u — June 9, 2011 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


playa - your bad assumptions humor me, please keep going!!

soapbox4u — June 9, 2011 at 12:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Amazing, if the president had to go through that level of scrutiny to log in, half the population wouldn't question his authenticity.

commonguy — June 9, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Commonguy...I have a feeling that the majority of Conservative could have witnessed his birth, and they would still question his authenticity.

seamuscallan — June 10, 2011 at 7:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


soapbox4u finally rolled out of bed after a long night of drinking and puked up,

"Your mud hole in nothing but that."

I haven't seen such quality writing since fiscaltiger.

Wiping some slobber off his chin, he then said,

"Your statements hold nothing to the real world."

To the real world? Not quite, dope. "In the real world" is the proper way to say it, unless you intended to sound like an imbecile.

"your bad assumptions humor me, please keep going"

As much as you'd like me to keep going, you've proven to be unworthy. If I were to continue an exchange with a troll, I'd need a better adversary than you. Let's be honest here...it's not even fun or entertaining. You just have so little to offer, so little ammunition; it's quite sad. Although it was you that came at me looking to start something, I've never been one to pick on little kids, those who are mentally challenged, or the elderly. This is feeling a little too close to that.

A final thought: Retiree, sportyjames, and soapbox4u - all three "characters" responsible for hating most people here, being malcontents, and most of their posts are short, impotent insults towards others. Fiscaltiger seemed to have a problem with all of the same people, but posted longer, rambling, incoherent BS. They may or may not all the same person, but I'd bet money on some overlap.

playa — June 10, 2011 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh my - let the chest pounding continue. Not only here but on my wall too! Too much fun, watching how you try to invoke your overinflated opinions and ego, playing them out with unfounded logic in such a novel way. Keep on guessing, you might just get it right on of these years.

soapbox4u — June 10, 2011 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


playa: I have seen overlap, too, in other posters. They may not all be sock puppets, but are possibly related by friendship, blood or marriage to a popular commenter or two. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. We all form alliances in everything we do.

There are certainly patterns to posts, as you suggest. For example, are you from the UK or Down Under? Your use of the terms "sod off" and "bloke" hint at that and distinguish you from others. I don't expect an answer as I truly respect your right to privacy. And please note: I am not trying to start a fight. I am just making an observation. No praise, no blame. Objective.

Probably the ONLY positive outcome with the Facebook switch, from my perspective, is its power to reduce the frequency of readers who register under multiple psuedonyms.

manthou — June 11, 2011 at 10:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Suggestions for new topics

1. Is the Columbian in violation of their own TOS? http://www.columbian.com/terms scroll down to paragraph 19 on privacy. This paragraph states that the Columbian will not share any personal data that you share with them. Is this statement overcome by the fact that the Coumbialn has now outsourced their privacy to Facebook, which believes in no privacy at all, or is the Columbian in violation of their own TOS?

2. Recently (8 June) poster Bob Larimer wrote in response to Debbie Peterson's ltte, "Sign anti-light rail petition":

"Light rail will not pay for itself.
It will import criminals from Portland.
It will prove to have enormous cost overruns in its construction and maintenance.
It will be an unbearable burden on taxpayers, while it heaps more control and regulation in the hands of liberal government officials and their bureaucratic friends."

None of these statements are provable. This would seem to be in violation the the Coumbian's TOS Paragraph 5 bullet number seven. Question, under the Facebook reign, can the Columbian even delete these untrue comments in accordance with their TOS or does the outsourcing of comments to Facebook supercede the Columbian's TOS entirely? Are we then forced to read the comments no matter if they obey the Columbian's TOS or not? Please discuss.

dfsadfh — June 11, 2011 at 9:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


dfsadfh — June 11, 2011 at 9:02 p.m.

First off, since the Columbian creates their own rules, I guess they can change them or ignore them as they choose. It wouldn't surprise me if they delete your or my post at their whim.

Secondly, bobbo says whatever he wants and the Columbian looks the other way because he IS bobbo and his words are sacred. They are, however, his opinion and as such are considered free speech as long as he doesn't say anything against the Columbian or uses foul language and after all he IS using his REAL name. Who cares.

hawkeye — June 11, 2011 at 9:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawkeye,

Paragraph 22 of the TOS is the one that allows them to change anything they like to but it does say that they will "immediately publish changes to the guidelines as soon as they are made." Gotta say that they don't exactly understand the definition of immediate. As far as ignoring them, pretty sleazy of them to ignore their own rules don''t you think.

I'm a new commentator, they seem to have driven me over the edge with the Facebook lack of privacy thing. I often thought of joining in just to accuse Ray of violation of the paragraph five bit but other posters always would chime in and point out how absurd his comments were. Now there are very few other poster's with that inclination. Don't get me wrong because there are some folks that are doing just that with the absurdities that bobbo posts, but they do seem to be in the minority now days.

Let's all just go out and raise a glass to the first anonymous blogger(s). Here's to Publius, without whom we may never have had a constitution that allows folks to post whatever they want.

dfsadfh — June 11, 2011 at 10:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


dfsadfh: Keep posting on the Forums, please! There are so many good reasons why many rational people have refused to jump on the Facebook wagon. The best conversations are happening here, in my opinion. They are certainly more varied and plentiful!

hawkeye: I noticed in Lou's column yesterday that he called the Facebook commenters "real people". By implication, then, are we not? The continued disrespect he implies for a loyal group of subscribers amazes me. Is it arrogance or ignorance?

Facebook will not eliminate negative commenters (Larimer, for example). Those who continue to spew forth toxic language and ideas with their names proudly attached are much more dangerous than the anonymous poster.

Anyway, my comment history speaks for itself. I'll hang on here as long as I have the continued good dialogues and conversations shown by Forum posters.

manthou — June 12, 2011 at 8:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


dfsadfh: In response to the good questions you posed at 9:02 PM: it may take a legal challenge to answer some of them.

Someone, somewhere, sometime will have the resources to do it. It is happening now with Facebook. My employer is drafting some very strict social media policies based on current lawsuits. The court decisions will inform and mandate more changes. It is risky to participate in Facebook and wiser to stay away.

For The Columbian and the privacy conflicts you mention, I'll wager that it is just a matter of time.

manthou — June 12, 2011 at 8:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — June 12, 2011 at 8:50 a.m

It has always amazed me that the Columbian actually went with the Farcebook sign in process. I don't think it had anything to do with "people using their REAL names". I think it had to do with the "C" trying to prove their legitimacy. If they are recognized by a worldwide web site, it might make them more "real". Either that, or money, or both.

As for the rules, like I said before, their rules. They can do whatever they want with them. It doesn't have to be fair to anyone else. Of course, that just disproves their legitimacy, but that should be no surprise to anyone here.

Honestly, if Lou really wants to make this hole in the wall rag a REAL newspaper, take some lessons from The Reflector, at least they have integrity.

hawkeye — June 12, 2011 at 9:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye: Yep. You might be right. The real name reason is a smokescreen for needing to try a new marketing ploy. Can't blame them for trying to entice more readers, but Facebook? Insulting long-time subscribers who don't want to join Facebook?

There was a workshop at The Hilton in downtown Vancouver in March about using Facebook to market your business. I have a feeling that Columbian management was in attendance.

I want my hometown paper to be successful. I champion news media as an important protector of democracy.

As a long-time print subscriber, it is downright insulting to have the editor demean and marginalize those of us who are respectful in our anonymous posts. I don't get it. I really don't. He can do that (it's good to be king), but it is not smart marketing. They can make all the rules they want, but when those rules become so restrictive, it won't be worth the effort to continue to support the paper.

What happened to customer retention? Does the C think that the Facebook world will be clamoring to join in? Not likely. And not as consistently and loyally as those of us who have been sharing ideas and concerns on this forum since its inception.

manthou — June 12, 2011 at 9:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou as always, you rock! I don't mean to take away from a substantive conversation here, which it very much is and you are right on when saying the best conversations are happening here. Thanks for bringing to light the "real people" comment, perhaps it was designed to put a journalistic boot print on the back of our insignificant heads, or just feed the 'you and him fight' mentality that you have thoughtfully pointed out before. Whatever it is, it ain't proper!

Given that the Columbian ONLY allows themselves to have a forum on a given subject, and the discussion lasts a week and a new one is about to be undertaken, I do want to again suggest...

that a reasonable discussion of legalized prostitution take place. There are pro's and con's to the issue, and given the wave of anti-gov interference that is taking place, I do believe the libertarian purists would not have a problem with this concept. Let's compare Germany's as well as other countries that offer legalized prostitution with certain restrictions and regulations, against the violent crime rate against women to include rape and incest to ours. Are they related? What do the studies show and how can we better our society as a whole if these discussions are marginalized by the minored of our society. As a modern society we need to look at solving some of the crime related issues that suck up so much of our resources. Might I also suggest the drug issues have a forum as well as gambling. It's time the government stopped restricting viable, taxable, sources of revenue based on simplistic Christian ideals.

nailingit — June 12, 2011 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 12, 2011 at 1:40 p.m.

I can't see a downside to your idea. I think the Republican'ts will be in favor of it since they seem to lean that way during conventions. Also, the government types will love the income and regulation side. There's money to be made from those hos, especially when the health care law comes through. Reasonable check-up rates (or should I say, tune-up rates) and licensing, fun for all.

hawkeye — June 12, 2011 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye- Legalization seems to work well in other countries, and also helps control the spread of disease. The sex industry exists whether we regulate it or not, why not regulate it and tax it. Seeing how the baggers in the House have spent the majority of their time legislating morality, lets filet this issue and expose the immorality and pitfalls of the illegal sex trade as opposed to the legal sex trade. That crap at the value motel would not be happening. A few houses for those that like to catch the rising sun on the outskirts of town and ... bingo..yes, bingo could also be a draw!

nailingit — June 12, 2011 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Something tells me that Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray, and a couple of others would object just the tiniest bit. On the other hand, would Sarah Palin just wink and say Boys Will Be Boys?

Of course, maybe I'm referencing the wrong authorities - most of our politicos prostitute themselves on a frequent basis.

roger — June 12, 2011 at 6:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


So glad the Mavs beat the Heat. Show those spoiled brats they aren't really the best. At least the Blazers didn't lose to some second rate team.

hawkeye — June 12, 2011 at 8:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


rodger-LOL how true! It would be nice to have a frank discussion with our local leaders about this. It's a hard subject to discuss with some. People sometimes think if you advocate for a change in law for the betterment of the whole you are advocating usage. Like the drug issue. In a weird way,it's like being against the Iraq war and being called anti-American because of your views. Then again I was against intervening in the Kuwait war.

nailingit — June 12, 2011 at 8:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk-lemonade from lemons!

nailingit — June 12, 2011 at 8:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The Collapse Continues in Local Home Prices article by Cami Joner is a good starting point for a forum on this topic. Her sources say we haven't yet reached bottom on home value decline, and also suggests the future is going to have a lot of us going back to rental housing. Are we seeing the death of the Middle Class dream of home ownership?

roger — June 19, 2011 at 11:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Good morning, Libby, Matt, and any and all Columbian journalists who check this virtual suggestion box:

How about an "Back Fence" forum? You know, something that would give folks a chance to do what we do over the back fence every day with friendly neighbors: discuss our garden progress; share recipes; crab or celebrate the weather, etc.

We need a place here to escape the political fist fights that are draining as a steady diet.

Allen: I like your Tech Forum, as well. I can bet we have some experts among us.

manthou — July 24, 2011 at 7:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Forum Login