Hillary's Village Re-Branding itself as "Hillary Clinton Forum" - very bad net etiquette...

[CGP]

http://www.hillarysvillage.net

So it wasn't enough that the creators of Hillary's Village were able to start their forum by luring hundreds of members from HCF, lifting the format/structure of HCF, and publicly disparaging HCF. They are also now rebranding themselves as "Hillary Clinton Forum".

So just when everything had quietened down and the forum wars had settled, HV has felt the need to re-ignite old wounds by plastering "Hillary Clinton Forum" all over its site. Are they attempting to mislead people into thinking HCF is now Hillary's Village? I don't know. Regardless, it's extremely bad net etiquette.

[Horizon]

http://www.hillarysvillage.net

So it wasn't enough that the creators of Hillary's Village were able to start their forum by luring hundreds of members from HCF, lifting the format/structure of HCF, and publicly disparaging myself & HCF. They are also now rebranding themselves as "Hillary Clinton Forum".

So just when everything had quietened down and the forum wars had settled, HV has felt the need to re-ignite old wounds by plastering "Hillary Clinton Forum" all over its site. Are they attempting to mislead people into thinking HCF is now Hillary's Village? I don't know. Regardless, it's extremely bad net etiquette.

Dont go there, so I didnt see they had done that. I agree, very poor taste indeed.:eek:

[CGP]

Dont go there, so I didnt see they had done that. I agree, very poor taste indeed.:eek:

I don't either. It was brought to my attention by people that do.

[sojourner]

I don't either. It was brought to my attention by people that do.

It doesn't matter. They have gotten all the HCF members they are going to get. Just makes them look small.

[Meg]

People never change. I'm not even gonna get into it about that bunch of lovely people. :e3:

[Horizon]

We ALL know where the REAL HCF is anyway!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:@};-

[CGP]

It doesn't matter. They have gotten at the HCF members they are going to get. Just makes them look small.

I know.

But it makes things a little bit confusing for those people that just surf sites and don't actually post. Or people that just pass by.

[Spang]

My charisma attracts new members.

[CGP]

It would be like me deciding to plaster the words "Hillary's Village" all over HCF and trying to lead people into thinking this forum (HCF) was now HV?

It's bizarre.

[sojourner]

I know.

But it makes things a little bit confusing for those people that just surf sites and don't actually post. Or people that just pass by.

I see you point. I just googled "hillary clinton forum" and guess you can up number four.

[VotingHillary]

anyway to contact Google about this?

[VotingHillary]

It would be like me deciding to plaster the words "Hillary's Village" all over HCF and trying to lead people into thinking this forum (HCF) was now HV?

It's bizarre.

Well, there's a thought. Why not? All is fair in love and the internet! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Just kidding.

[Horizon]

Well, there's a thought. Why not? All is fair in love and the internet! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Just kidding.

:eek::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[westmann13]

http://www.hillarysvillage.net

So it wasn't enough that the creators of Hillary's Village were able to start their forum by luring hundreds of members from HCF, lifting the format/structure of HCF, and publicly disparaging HCF. They are also now rebranding themselves as "Hillary Clinton Forum".

So just when everything had quietened down and the forum wars had settled, HV has felt the need to re-ignite old wounds by plastering "Hillary Clinton Forum" all over its site. Are they attempting to mislead people into thinking HCF is now Hillary's Village? I don't know. Regardless, it's extremely bad net etiquette.

I think the members would have been lured on their own, anyway. I saw how upset many got here. Why don't you get them back and put "Hillary's Village" at the top of this forum?

[CGP]

Why don't you get them back and put "Hillary's Village" at the top of this forum?

I would never stoop so low.

[westmann13]

I would never stoop so low.

Perhaps they thought this forum was Common Ground Politics and made the mistake the name Hillary Clinton Forum was up for grabs?

[Jobu86]

Perhaps they thought this forum was Common Ground Politics and made the mistake the name Hillary Clinton Forum was up for grabs?

lol No.

[CGP]

Perhaps they thought this forum was Common Ground Politics and made the mistake the name Hillary Clinton Forum was up for grabs?

Mmm...I don't think so. It's pretty clear what this forum is called - the web domain should make that clear!

[westmann13]

Mmm...I don't think so. It's pretty clear what this forum is called - the web domain should make that clear!

Not to worry about then - the domain is still different. But if they decide to change www.hillarysvillage.net to www.hillaryclintonforum.net that's when you would be protected against copyright infringement.

[CGP]

Not to worry about then - the domain is still different. But if they decide to change www.hillarysvillage.net to www.hillaryclintonforum.net that's when you would be protected against copyright infringement.

No-one can change to the www.hillaryclintonforum.net domain name as it's already in use - here!

[TheTaoOfBill]

They'd service their forum a lot better if they rebranded as "Anti Obama Forum"

I have no idea how they think they are going to attract Hillary supporters when they clearly do not support what Hillary supports. I think most Hillary supporters looking for a place to discuss politics would be much more likely to come here than there. Because most Hillary supporters do not hate Obama.

This was obviously a calculated move to get their forum to move up on the "Hillary Clinton Forum" google search.

Right now we have the top spot in that search but they are not too far down.

[UKSocialist]

They would probably lure more people of their ideology if they plastered "Free Republic" everywhere instead.

[Brooke]

I'm going to plead the 5th in this case, just like Meggles. :laughing:

[Suzan]

Why did they do it? Anyone know? It is going to cause confusion and it doesn't make any sense to me.

CGP, isn't there something that can be done?

[TheTaoOfBill]

Why did they do it? Anyone know? It is going to cause confusion and it doesn't make any sense to me.

CGP, isn't there something that can be done?

It's simple. They want to appear on the google search for "Hillary Clinton Forum".

I don't think their goal was to spite us.

And unfortunately I don't think Murray has a case for copyright infringement because Hillary's village and HCF aren't the only ones to use "Hillary Clinton Forum"

It would probably be ruled to generic of a phrase to be considered trademarked.

[Suzan]

It's simple. They want to appear on the google search for "Hillary Clinton Forum".

Ah, of course. I think someone here has already Googled and we came out as #4 among the HCFs out there.

[Brooke]

There is no truth to this. 10 million of us voted for McCain as a protest vote... That's not counting people who stayed home and voted for anyone other than Obama.

Yes, but most of us don't still hold any resentment towards him. At least I don't. Some of the people over there still harbor hatred and resentment and haven't gotten over the election. That's fine for them, but I think this forum is better off without that.

[Amy Dugan]

There is no truth to this. 10 million of us voted for McCain as a protest vote... That's not counting people who stayed home and voted for anyone other than Obama.

or wrote in Hillary

[westmann13]

or wrote in Hillary

hillarystamp!

[Brooke]

We couldn't write in anybody here. I would have written in Hillary.

But my vote for McCain wasn't a protest vote. Although, this past week with his antics re: Iran, I've started to regret it.

[hobbitt]

They are also now rebranding themselves as "Hillary Clinton Forum".



I'd like to help them out. Surely WyomingDem has a few old branding irons lying about....

[CGP]

So now HV (www.hillarysvillage.net) is using something from The Daily Beast as well? Click on the image attachment below (See the image beside the website address & note it's from www.thedailybeast.com)

And HV continues to try and mislead people into thinking it's the original HCF. The forum is not titled HV, it's still retitled as HCF even though I asked the onwers/administrators to referain from doing that to avoid confusion. Is there anything original left about HV?

[cinnamongirl]

So now HV (www.hillarysvillage.net) is using something from The Daily Beast as well? Click on the image attachment below (See the image beside the website address & note it's from www.thedailybeast.com)

And HV continues to try and mislead people into thinking it's the original HCF. The forum is not titled HV, it's still retitled as HCF even though I asked the onwers/administrators to referain from doing that to avoid confusion.

You have to admit they've got a pretty good strategy. Why try to create a place for real discourse when you can whip up an underinformed frenzy and steal what you need from other sites?

[Alex01]

What truly happened, in a nutshell. I just found this pm for me from 11/08:

hi Alex!!

we Pumas, not sure if you are one, are headed towards a new site..

too many fraud fans are coming here trying to make nice,

if you wanna join a fraud-free site, the address is :

www.hillarysvillage.net (http://www.hillarysvillage.net/)

please come join us if you wish. many long time posters are already over there...

thanks!

Hillary's Village is a Kool-aid free zone. We have Dems, ex-Dems, Republicans, Independents, etc., and welcome everyone who wants what's best for America (and the world, of course) to join the discussion.

As for the "Hillary Clinton Forum" moniker: That's what HillVill is. All those who come there, pretty much, love and admire Hillary Rodham Clinton. And, from what I understand, you are technically no longer HCF. (Also, see TTOB's post #25 - nicely put!)

It's nice to be able to come over here and visit. You have a lot of great threads and posters, and I have fond memories of this site, especially from when I was trying to sort out the political mess of 2008.

I think there is room for both our forums on the internets. You know what Hillary sez: It takes a Village! (Sorry, I had to do that.;))

[CGP]

I think there is room for both our forums on the internet.

Of course. And people are free to post here, there, and anyone else! Every forum has a different focus and mix of people, and it's interesting to post/participate in different places.

But I do not agree with some of the strategies used by HV to draw people to their site.

I note that HV had retitled their forum HCF before the name change took place here, so that explanation doesn't really hold.

[Kbentleyis]

Murray, I'm a part of that "bunch" of people, and I've never heard anyone there use the name of HCF. And, for those who are not a member, it's just a group of common sense people. No radicals or troublemakers.

We are people who are against the unjust treatment of women and children. Our policies and mission state that very thing.

Our political views are more conservative and also support pro-choice, except late abortions.

I don't know where Hillary's Villiage could be a problem to anyone here. No one there even discusses this forum. We pretty much go to several personal forums we all enjoy.

[CGP]

Murray, I'm a part of that "bunch" of people, and I've never heard anyone there use the name of HCF.

KB, it has 'HILLARY CLINTON FORUM' at the very top of the website.

And in it's official name (which appears in Google searches), HV is not called 'Hillary's Village', it is titled as 'Hillary Clinton Forum'.

That is what I am talking about. I have ZERO issue with the forum itself other than the use of the HCF name.

[Alex01]

Murray, I'm a part of that "bunch" of people, and I've never heard anyone there use the name of HCF...

KB, hiya! I'm just saying this to defend myself: I just went to HillVill and it says "Hillary Clinton Forum" at the top of the page. But, as I was saying, that is what Hillary's Village is - a Hillary Clinton forum.:cool:

[CGP]

But, as I was saying, that is what Hillary's Village is - a Hillary Clinton forum.:cool:

Well, it's not just that - there is more than just a focus on Hillary.

It's clear what the intention is behind the rebranding - it's not uninentional.

[Kbentleyis]

KB, hiya! I'm just saying this to defend myself: I just went to HillVill and it says "Hillary Clinton Forum" at the top of the page. But, as I was saying, that is what Hillary's Village is - a Hillary Clinton forum.:cool:

Gotcha!

[foxyladi]

IMHO.we should just enjoy both.:e4::e4:

[Meg]

What truly happened, in a nutshell. I just found this pm for me from 11/08:



Hillary's Village is a Kool-aid free zone. We have Dems, ex-Dems, Republicans, Independents, etc., and welcome everyone who wants what's best for America (and the world, of course) to join the discussion.

As for the "Hillary Clinton Forum" moniker: That's what HillVill is. All those who come there, pretty much, love and admire Hillary Rodham Clinton. And, from what I understand, you are technically no longer HCF. (Also, see TTOB's post #25 - nicely put!)

It's nice to be able to come over here and visit. You have a lot of great threads and posters, and I have fond memories of this site, especially from when I was trying to sort out the political mess of 2008.

I think there is room for both our forums on the internets. You know what Hillary sez: It takes a Village! (Sorry, I had to do that.;))

And none of that was insulting right? *rolleyes*

[StacyinBoston]

I'm new and don't have the history with either site, although I was red-flagged at HV by a mod a couple weeks ago so I left- they weren't very welcoming of new members at all so I get a kick out of the fact that are trying to attract new ones- try being nice! Then you don't even have to change your name!

I don't get it- they were called 'Hillary's Village' but changed the name to Hillary Clinton Forum? It would be one thing if their previous name had been something more general and not Hillary-related like '2008 Political Forum' or something (given most of this stuff seemed to take off during the campaign) but to change it from one Hillary name to another is suspect and I would think they are taking advantage of the SEO of HCF, which is kinda lame. It also is interesting because I know folks who are very pro-Hillary who are *leaving* HV because it has become so pro-Palin. So I think there is confusion all around.

[CGP]

but to change it from one Hillary name to another is suspect and I would think they are taking advantage of the SEO of HCF, which is kinda lame.

Yes, that is the likely intention.

[Horizon]

Of course. And people are free to post here, there, and anyone else! Every forum has a different focus and mix of people, and it's interesting to post/participate in different places.

But I do not agree with some of the strategies used by HV to draw people to their site.

I note that HV had retitled their forum HCF before the name change took place here, so that explanation doesn't really hold.

It seems to me that they were just waiting for you to once and for all change the name here from Hillary Clinton Forum to something else, so they could start using that on the masthead. Seems obvious to me what they're doing. And yes, it is very bed "net etiquette".:thinking:

Given the amount of full on Palin supporters that post there, it cracks me up that they use Hillarys name anywhere. I think she would also find it quite amusing.

[CGP]

IMHO.we should just enjoy both.:e4::e4:

Of course. And nice to see you visiting here! You have a Top 5 ranking to defend! ;)

[CGP]

It seems to me that they were just waiting for you to once and for all change the name here from Hillary Clinton Forum to something else, so they could start using that on the masthead.

They were using the title "Hillary Clinton Forum" BEFORE the name change occurred here.

[matiah]

They were using the title "Hillary Clinton Forum" BEFORE the name change occurred here.

They knew your plans :)

[Horizon]

They were using the title "Hillary Clinton Forum" BEFORE the name change occurred here.

Oh, thats right. I had forgotten that. Even worse, IMHO.

[CGP]

They knew your plans :)

Actually, I didn't announce the actual name change.

Yes, the idea had been floated in the past but they started using the HCF name regardless.

And that's not even the point - it's just bad etiquette to use the name of another site.

[CGP]

Hillary's Village is a Kool-aid free zone. We have Dems, ex-Dems, Republicans, Independents, etc., and welcome everyone who wants what's best for America (and the world, of course) to join the discussion.

Alex, how is it possible to openly discuss "what's best for America" if one major group - people who support Obama - are 100% excluded from the discussion. I didn't support Obama in 2008, but it's become clear to me that the most interesting discussions are those which allow all groups/people to participate in the conversation. That is how "Common Ground Politics" emerged - I wanted a more diverse group of people to be able to join in. Exluding a major group of people doesn't help with the quality of debate.

[hillwillwin08]

Yes, but most of us don't still hold any resentment towards him. At least I don't. Some of the people over there still harbor hatred and resentment and haven't gotten over the election. That's fine for them, but I think this forum is better off without that.

I guess I'm part of "some of those people." I posted a lot on this forum
during the election, but mostly lurk on both forums now. I do however
post some news articles on both forums from time to time.

Perhaps by following this forum, I'll manage to lose some of my resentment
with time, but for now I just can't seem to.

This forum was a godsend for the latest news and polling results during the
election. Murray and the other administrators did an exemplary job. We were
a family.

If HV's structure looks a lot like this forum, it's because they modeled it after the best.

There's room for both forums. Long live them both.

[foxyladi]

I guess I'm part of "some of those people." I posted a lot on this forum
during the election, but mostly lurk on both forums now. I do however
post some news articles on both forums from time to time.

Perhaps by following this forum, I'll manage to lose some of my resentment
with time, but for now I just can't seem to.

This forum was a godsend for the latest news and polling results during the
election. Murray and the other administrators did an exemplary job. We were
a family.

If HV's structure looks a lot like this forum, it's because they modeled it after the best.

There's room for both forums. Long live them both.

AMEN :thumbsup: AMEN :thumbsup: AMEN:thumbsup:
:thumbsup:

[CGP]

There's room for both forums. Long live them both.

And more!

The internet is a big place.

[Aria]

And that's not even the point - it's just bad etiquette to use the name of another site.


More than bad etiquette, it's bad ethics, imo! They obviously hope it will work in their favor and don't mind bending (breaking) the unwritten rules of netiquette.[-X And yes, they used HCF before this (real) HCF changed to CGP. That's the issue. No one here is worried about competition between the sites as far as I can tell. And frankly, I'm glad this forum has become Common Ground Politics - the time has come. It faces reality and is a very welcoming name, with worthy goals. :thumbsup:

[CGP]

More than bad etiquette, it's bad ethics, imo! They obviously hope it will work in their favor and don't mind bending (breaking) the unwritten rules of netiquette.[-X And yes, they used HCF before this (real) HCF changed to CGP. That's the issue. No one here is worried about competition between the sites as far as I can tell. And frankly, I'm glad this forum has become Common Ground Politics - the time has come. It faces reality and is a very welcoming name, with worthy goals. :thumbsup:

genericstamp!

[CGP]

Luckily the domains can't be taken and these 2 below automatically redirect to CGP, as do any threads with the HCF domain in them:

www.hillaryclintonforum.net
www.hillaryclintonforum.org

[Suzan]

Alex, how is it possible to openly discuss "what's best for America" if one major group - people who support Obama - are 100% excluded from the discussion. I didn't support Obama in 2008, but it's become clear to me that the most interesting discussions are those which allow all groups/people to participate in the conversation. That is how "Common Ground Politics" emerged - I wanted a more diverse group of people to be able to join in. Exluding a major group of people doesn't help with the quality of debate.
Yes, I agree, and through trial and error, we're learning that with some rules and guidelines in place, it's possible to discuss even the most controversial topics from all points of view.

If we can discuss issues with conservatives, why not liberals? It really doesn't make sense to omit one entire side of the political spectrum. Probably not a great analogy, but boats tend to sink when everyone's on one side.

[CGP]

Yes, I agree, and through trial and error, we're learning that with some rules and guidelines in place, it's possible to discuss even the most controversial topics from all points of view.

If we can discuss issues with conservatives, why not liberals? It really doesn't make sense to omit one entire side of the political spectrum. Probably not a great analogy, but boats tend to sink when everyone's on one side.

Poor Spang is on a self-imposed suspension and, honestly, I miss him! He's a committed defender/advocate of Obama, and there are few people in here trying to fulfill that role. Discussions are more interesting when all sides get to say something.

(Though I must say my open-ness to hearing "all sides" is severely tested on one particular issue - gay marriage!).

[CGP]

Probably not a great analogy, but boats tend to sink when everyone's on one side.

Actually, I think it's a very useful one.

[VotingHillary]

Poor Spang is on a self-imposed suspension and, honestly, I miss him! He's a committed defender/advocate of Obama, and there are few people in here trying to fulfill that role. Discussions are more interesting when all sides get to say something.

(Though I must say my open-ness to hearing "all sides" is severely tested on one particular issue - gay marriage!).

I PM'ed him last night and told him that wasn't necessary....his punishment was getting his behind handed to him by the women on this board. I thought that was sufficient enough!

:rotfl:

[CGP]

I PM'ed him last night and told him that wasn't necessary....his punishment was getting his behind handed to him by the women on this board. I thought that was sufficient enough!

:rotfl:

Yes, that was sufficient!

[Suzan]

Yes, that was sufficient!
Right, and he did apologize. I thought it was a fine apology, actually, but it wasn't received too well, lol.

I'm going to PM him too. We need him back--and to me this really does prove that you have to have all sides if you're going to thoroughly discuss an issue.

[VotingHillary]

Right, and he did apologize. I thought it was a fine apology, actually, but it wasn't received too well, lol.

I'm going to PM him too. We need him back--and to me this really does prove that you have to have all sides if you're going to thoroughly discuss an issue.

Yesterday, 01:03 AM
Spang
Presidential Member = >1000 Posts Ideology: Fake American
Poster Rank: #22
Posts: 4,216
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I'm probably the most offensive person who posts on this forum. However, I try really, really, really, really hard to censor myself as much as possible. Occasionally, I enjoy pushing the envelope. I had no idea that pointing out the obvious was going to be the straw that broke the camel's back. However, it did. And for that I apologize.

I think that might have been why it wasn't.

[karate kid x]

Newsflash: The number of people looking for some forum about hillary clinton is MANY MANY MANY times greater than the number of people looking for this forum in particular.

Nobody in their right mind would expect people who are active on that forum to really think that it is this one.

"Hillary Clinton Forum" is not an original idea either, in-fact it's probably the least original name possible for a forum that is about Hillary Clinton.

[Horizon]

Newsflash: The number of people looking for some forum about hillary clinton is MANY MANY MANY times greater than the number of people looking for this forum in particular.

Nobody in their right mind would expect people who are active on that forum to really think that it is this one.

"Hillary Clinton Forum" is not an original idea either, in-fact it's probably the least original name possible for a forum that is about Hillary Clinton.

So, what exactly was it that brought you here and keeps you here???? Doesn't sound like you are much of a fan of this place.:thinking:

[karate kid x]

So, what exactly was it that brought you here and keeps you here???? Doesn't sound like you are much of a fan of this place.:thinking:

Unlike most people on this forum, I really do not find discussion more enjoyable if it's only with yes-men

[Horizon]

Unlike most people on this forum, I really do not find discussion more enjoyable if it's only with yes-men

I don't think anyone here wants that. Not sure how you got that impression, but we all like a bit of the debate here!

[Meg]

Unlike most people on this forum, I really do not find discussion more enjoyable if it's only with yes-men

If that were the case wouldn't we still be "Hillary Clinton Forum"? Just sayin...

[karate kid x]

I don't think anyone here wants that. Not sure how you got that impression, but we all like a bit of the debate here!

Well, Back when i first visited this forum, just as the DNC was starting, I saw a thread about how a mccain victory was beneficial to hillary clinton. I Tried to make a case that it would politically damage hillary if obama didn't win.

I made another account, and posted and tried to explain myself and express why i thought it was a bad idea to ban someone for making such a remark, and was banned for that.

I don't know why i'm so interested in this forum, It's like i'm a moth drawn to a fire

Even as late as January, I was reminded of how vindictive this forum was to political opponents when i posted how that the existence of a gay gene is inconsistent with the theory of evolution, which is an issue that i'm not going to go into here anymore out of fear of being banned.


Hrrrmmmm how did i ever get that impression

[mack20]

Well, Back when i first visited this forum, just as the DNC was starting, I saw a thread about how a mccain victory was beneficial to hillary clinton. I Tried to make a case that it would politically damage hillary if obama didn't win.

I made another account, and posted and tried to explain myself and express why i thought it was a bad idea to ban someone for making such a remark, and was banned for that.

I don't know why i'm so interested in this forum, It's like i'm a moth drawn to a fire

Even as late as January, I was reminded of how vindictive this forum was to political opponents when i posted how that the existence of a gay gene is inconsistent with the theory of evolution, which is an issue that i'm not going to go into here anymore out of fear of being banned.


Hrrrmmmm how did i ever get that impression

In fairness, I think that this forum has largely moved away from that mindset. I am openly and vocally an Obama supporter, and I think that we both know that I would not have been very well tolerated (if at all) a year ago. These days I may still get into it with the occasional person, but so long as I have been respectful to others I have mostly received the same respect in return and have felt perfectly comfortable expressing myself here.

In fact, if you look at the thread about what Obama's Achilles heel is, Laura and I are currently discussing a topic that is still very controversial (Obama's eligibility) and thus far we have both remained perfectly calm and respectful while both presenting legitimate evidence (court cases, legal documents) that we believe backs up our own personal claim. There are no accusations of drinking kool-aid or being obots or anything of that derogatory nature.

[Brooke]

In fairness, I think that this forum has largely moved away from that mindset. I am openly and vocally an Obama supporter, and I think that we both know that I would not have been very well tolerated (if at all) a year ago. These days I may still get into it with the occasional person, but so long as I have been respectful to others I have mostly received the same respect in return and have felt perfectly comfortable expressing myself here.

In fact, if you look at the thread about what Obama's Achilles heel is, Laura and I are currently discussing a topic that is still very controversial (Obama's eligibility) and thus far we have both remained perfectly calm and respectful while both presenting legitimate evidence (court cases, legal documents) that we believe backs up our own personal claim. There are no accusations of drinking kool-aid or being obots or anything of that derogatory nature.

I have to agree with this. Sam, you're still remembering the forum from the election and honestly, this forum and most of us have changed so much since then. I was very angry and very anti Obama last year and there were a lot of emotions I was going through. That's since passed, right after he won and I'm kind of neutral now and I love all the discussions.

If you want to post something, just post it. It's not a big deal. We're all friends here. I would hope.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Well, gay issues would still be a sensitive topic given who Murray is and how he is unwilling to debate with people showing anti-gay positions.

Though me personally I believe with only 40% of the nation supporting gay marriage it is something with should allow full debate on. The only way that 40% is going to become a majority is through discussions on forums on and offline.

And your evolution point is a common thing brought up in anti gay rhetoric and we should be mature adults and debate it politely and thoughtfully.

[Lynne]

Yes, I agree, and through trial and error, we're learning that with some rules and guidelines in place, it's possible to discuss even the most controversial topics from all points of view.

If we can discuss issues with conservatives, why not liberals? It really doesn't make sense to omit one entire side of the political spectrum. Probably not a great analogy, but boats tend to sink when everyone's on one side.
I am struggling with the new structure that occurred after the Obama supporters were joined. To this day, when I post I perceive that I am drowned out by Obama supporters. I get this perception because it seems that the responses are based on opinion that is used to blow off factual information. Such as the birth certificate issue. The definition of the COLB and a birth certificate has been around for a long time on forums and I thought it was known that they are different and why. Same thing with the requirements of the Constitution. I did not perceive debate on the matter. Instead I felt that the canned response of "the COLB proves his citizenship" was the final word.

This is not meant to be an attack. It is just my perception that I think one side does dominate. Like I said. This new format is difficult because I think that sometimes information is presented as fact and discussion about the veracity of that fact is dismissed. So I probably won't post much because I am not comfortable with this new posting style. If a person can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. I am getting out of the kitchen.

But I do find great news information and it is a good place to try to see what Obama supporters see in him.

This is an issue about how I feel and not that I have an axe to grind with anyone. I think diversity is good. I am responding because I think various sides are represented.

[Horizon]

Well, gay issues would still be a sensitive topic given who Murray is and how he is unwilling to debate with people showing anti-gay positions.

Though me personally I believe with only 40% of the nation supporting gay marriage it is something with should allow full debate on. The only way that 40% is going to become a majority is through discussions on forums on and offline.

And your evolution point is a common thing brought up in anti gay rhetoric and we should be mature adults and debate it politely and thoughtfully.

Given that my daughter is gay, I am damn near as "sensitive" as Murr is on the gay topic. For me, there is no "gray" area in it. None at all. I can not even rationally discuss it with people who do not view it as I do, I will admit that right here, right now. For me, it is all about equality, justice, love, and tolerance. Anyone who does not agree with me about it, I'm sorry, I will not even give you the time of day where gay rights are concerned.

Any other issues I will gladly debate. But not that one. Not now, not ever.:cool:

[TheTaoOfBill]

I am struggling with the new structure that occurred after the Obama supporters were joined. To this day, when I post I perceive that I am drowned out by Obama supporters. I get this perception because it seems that the responses are based on opinion that is used to blow off factual information. Such as the birth certificate issue. The definition of the COLB and a birth certificate has been around for a long time on forums and I thought it was known that they are different and why. Same thing with the requirements of the Constitution. I did not perceive debate on the matter. Instead I felt that the canned response of "the COLB proves his citizenship" was the final word.

This is not meant to be an attack. It is just my perception that I think one side does dominate. Like I said. This new format is difficult because I think that sometimes information is presented as fact and discussion about the veracity of that fact is dismissed. So I probably won't post much because I am not comfortable with this new posting style. If a person can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. I am getting out of the kitchen.

But I do find great news information and it is a good place to try to see what Obama supporters see in him.

This is an issue about how I feel and not that I have an axe to grind with anyone. I think diversity is good. I am responding because I think various sides are represented.

That's because on the COLB debate the whole "COLB's do not prove citizenship" argument have been debunked time and time again. COLB's are used as proof of citizenship all the time and whoever says they aren't is lying. It's that simple.

Any court of law in this country would take a COLB as proof of citizenship.

[Lynne]

Please refer me to a source because I am still not understanding how it is debunked. I am trying to see other sides to the debate but I am a researcher by profession and I like to see source documentation.

[Spang]

Any court of law in this country would take a COLB as proof of citizenship.

A COLB was enough to get my driver license renewed.

My grandmother was not.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Given that my daughter is gay, I am damn near as "sensitive" as Murr is on the gay topic. For me, there is no "gray" area in it. None at all. I can not even rationally discuss it with people who do not view it as I do, I will admit that right here, right now. For me, it is all about equality, justice, love, and tolerance. Anyone who does not agree with me about it, I'm sorry, I will not even give you the time of day where gay rights are concerned.

Any other issues I will gladly debate. But not that one. Not now, not ever.:cool:

To me it's issues like gay rights where the opposition is fueled by ignorance and fear where it is most important to have a full discussion on it. If you just tell them they are stupid and forcefully remove them from the debate then you just prove the point in their mind that gays and gay supporters are evil and something worth hating on.

I'm not against making them feel stupid by dumping mass quanities of fact onto them but I am against outright shutting them out of the discussion.

I know Murray's philosophy is that we wouldn't allow someone to come in here and say interracial marriage is evil but that's because that debate ended decades ago. This debate is happening today. And it's imperative that we convince as many people as we can on which side is right. Especially since in recent years the anti gay movement has gained support.

[Lynne]

Where is the legislation that states this is true? Personal experience is not scientific.

[Horizon]

To me it's issues like gay rights where the opposition is fueled by ignorance and fear where it is most important to have a full discussion on it. If you just tell them they are stupid and forcefully remove them from the debate then you just prove the point in their mind that gays and gay supporters are evil and something worth hating on.

I'm not against making them feel stupid by dumping mass quanities of fact onto them but I am against outright shutting them out of the discussion.

I know Murray's philosophy is that we wouldn't allow someone to come in here and say interracial marriage is evil but that's because that debate ended decades ago. This debate is happening today. And it's imperative that we convince as many people as we can on which side is right. Especially since in recent years the anti gay movement has gained support.

What I have a problem with, is when they spout it is some kind of choice one makes, and not biological. I had someone ask me the other day when my daughter "decided" she was gay. My answer?? "In the womb, just like when you decided to be heterosexual". That is my problem. And then the bible thumping that soon follows.:rolleyes:
I have argued with people till I am blue in the face. I'm over it. Stupid is as Stupid does, and I can not smarten up any more people on the issue. I get to pissed about it.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Please refer me to a source because I am still not understanding how it is debunked. I am trying to see other sides to the debate but I am a researcher by profession and I like to see source documentation.

No problem.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html#PrimaryEvCitiz
This states the following as acceptable for birth certificates:
*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

Notice it says some short forms are not acceptable as proof of citizenship.

Alright so let's find out which states are not acceptable.

http://www.passportvisasexpress.com/certified_birth_certificate.xml
Applicants born in California or Texas MUST submit a Long-Form Birth Certificate; short forms or abstract birth certificates are UNACCEPTABLE

Hawaii is considered an acceptable state on this website.

http://www.passportvisapros.com/pspt.html

Applicants from Texas and California must use the Long Form birth certificate.
And this one

Further more if you go to this article (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)

you will see this little tid bit of information directly from the Hawaii department of health:
No, you can't obtain a "certificate of live birth" anymore.

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

so COLB's are the only type of birth certificate you can get in Hawaii. You are not even given the option of getting a long version birth certificate. The COLB is the state certified birth certificate in Hawaii.

[TheTaoOfBill]

What I have a problem with, is when they spout it is some kind of choice one makes, and not biological. I had someone ask me the other day when my daughter "decided" she was gay. My answer?? "In the womb, just like when you decided to be heterosexual". That is my problem. And then the bible thumping that soon follows.:rolleyes:
I have argued with people till I am blue in the face. I'm over it. Stupid is as Stupid does, and I can not smarten up any more people on the issue. I get to pissed about it.

You don't have to convince everyone. And that shouldn't be your goal. All we need to do is convince about 20% of the people who aren't already convinced.

I'm sure there is 20% of the opposition willing to listen to what we have to say. And we should try to reach that 20% if we can.

[Suzan]

I am struggling with the new structure that occurred after the Obama supporters were joined. To this day, when I post I perceive that I am drowned out by Obama supporters. I get this perception because it seems that the responses are based on opinion that is used to blow off factual information. Such as the birth certificate issue. The definition of the COLB and a birth certificate has been around for a long time on forums and I thought it was known that they are different and why. Same thing with the requirements of the Constitution. I did not perceive debate on the matter. Instead I felt that the canned response of "the COLB proves his citizenship" was the final word.

This is not meant to be an attack. It is just my perception that I think one side does dominate. Like I said. This new format is difficult because I think that sometimes information is presented as fact and discussion about the veracity of that fact is dismissed. So I probably won't post much because I am not comfortable with this new posting style. If a person can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. I am getting out of the kitchen.

But I do find great news information and it is a good place to try to see what Obama supporters see in him.

This is an issue about how I feel and not that I have an axe to grind with anyone. I think diversity is good. I am responding because I think various sides are represented.

Lynne, thank you for the feedback on the new posting structure. Only you know what your comfort level is, and I respect that, but I'll be sorry to see you posting less. And just to add a different perspective that you may not be aware of, many of our Obama supporters feel exactly as you do, that they are outnumbered and outshouted by the other side.

I don't know if we've done an actual tally, but I believe we have fewer liberals than any other ideology and not all of them are Obama supporters. There probably aren't more than a half dozen tried and true Obama supporters, although they are passionate in their beliefs, so it may feel like more at times. ;)

And as far as facts versus opinions, you can certainly ask any poster to back up their opinions with facts. If they don't like your documentation, that's their problem, so to speak. Not everyone here will ever agree with any of us at all times. That's just the nature of diverse posting. And we do have other posters here who feel the birth certificate issue is a valid one and have presented lots of facts and documentation. I think we may have current thread about that, or more than one.

Thanks again for the feedback, and please drop in whenever you'd like. You're always welcome!

[CGP]

I am struggling with the new structure that occurred after the Obama supporters were joined. To this day, when I post I perceive that I am drowned out by Obama supporters. I get this perception because it seems that the responses are based on opinion that is used to blow off factual information. Such as the birth certificate issue. The definition of the COLB and a birth certificate has been around for a long time on forums and I thought it was known that they are different and why. Same thing with the requirements of the Constitution. I did not perceive debate on the matter. Instead I felt that the canned response of "the COLB proves his citizenship" was the final word.

This is not meant to be an attack. It is just my perception that I think one side does dominate. Like I said. This new format is difficult because I think that sometimes information is presented as fact and discussion about the veracity of that fact is dismissed. So I probably won't post much because I am not comfortable with this new posting style. If a person can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. I am getting out of the kitchen.

But I do find great news information and it is a good place to try to see what Obama supporters see in him.

This is an issue about how I feel and not that I have an axe to grind with anyone. I think diversity is good. I am responding because I think various sides are represented.

Lynne, I think in part it's definitely about perception. I have a very different perception of how things go here. There are very few BO supporters (maybe 5?!) and they are often drowned out (especially by some of the conservatives), depending on which thread it is. I think for some people (not necessarily you), the presence of even one Obama supporter is one too many so the perception of their "dominance" becomes completely distorted. You only have to look at the 2012 election poll to see who is dominating here currently. I think acclimation is also an issue - the more people hang out here and experience the new "culture" of the forum, the easier it perhaps becomes to accept the change from the past (when only one side could speak). Just popping in now and then makes it hard to know/experience what the new "culture" is. It is my view that the most interesting discussions take place when a wide range of views are expressed. As such, what you have to say/contribute is very valuable even if there might be some people who don't agree with your opinions - the same applies to everyone here.

[Alex01]

Lynne, I think in part it's definitely about perception. I have a very different perception of how things go here. There are very few BO supporters (maybe 5?!) and they are often drowned out (especially by some of the conservatives), depending on which thread it is. I think for some people (not necessarily you), the presence of even one Obama supporter is one too many so the perception of their "dominance" becomes completely distorted. You only have to look at the 2012 election poll to see who is dominating here currently. I think acclimation is also an issue - the more people hang out here and experience the new "culture" of the forum, the easier it perhaps becomes to accept the change from the past (when only one side could speak). Just popping in now and then makes it hard to know/experience what the new "culture" is. It is my view that the most interesting discussions take place when a wide range of views are expressed. As such, what you have to say/contribute is very valuable even if there might be some people who don't agree with your opinions - the same applies to everyone here.

Wow, very well put. I personally have found the atmosphere here to be much more hospitable than it was at the end of last year, which I chalk up to people seeing what has happened in this country in the last six months. And the topics are giving me quite a workout, which I like!=D>

[Alex01]

Alex, how is it possible to openly discuss "what's best for America" if one major group - people who support Obama - are 100% excluded from the discussion. I didn't support Obama in 2008, but it's become clear to me that the most interesting discussions are those which allow all groups/people to participate in the conversation. That is how "Common Ground Politics" emerged - I wanted a more diverse group of people to be able to join in. Exluding a major group of people doesn't help with the quality of debate.

Sorry I didn't answer sooner - I just saw your post.

I guess the best, if not the least controversial, is to compare the situation to a Democratic site that didn't want pugilistic Bush supporters there. Some Democrats, including myself, saw Bush as a murderer, a warmonger, a greedy corporate puppet, a tool, a sellout, a nincompoop. So countenancing those who unconditionally support such a person didn't make any sense, and could result in constant, useless fighting.

The same general principle applies to Obama, for some Hill's Villagers.

[Suzan]

Wow, very well put. I personally have found the atmosphere here to be much more hospitable than it was at the end of last year, which I chalk up to people seeing what has happened in this country in the last six months. And the topics are giving me quite a workout, which I like!=D>

Glad you're liking it here! And yes, we do have a wide variety of topics from a wide variety of posters. I think we're all getting a workout, which is fun, actually. I really like being exposed to so many viewpoints. It makes me think. :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

[Alces95]

I don't know where else to post this so I'll put it here.

Since the forum name was changed from HFC to CGP, it has reverted back to HCF mentality more. "Barry" is now back for the president's name, World Net Daily is a viable source and the Birth Certificate is a hot topic and everyones top one or two topic of discussion is Hillary. You would think it was July 08. I am waiting for the media oinks sticky to come back as well.

There were some great things about the old site but if the name of the forum is to be believed and the tagline is truly intended, well...:thinking:

[RichardMZhlubb]

Sorry I didn't answer sooner - I just saw your post.

I guess the best, if not the least controversial, is to compare the situation to a Democratic site that didn't want pugilistic Bush supporters there. Some Democrats, including myself, saw Bush as a murderer, a warmonger, a greedy corporate puppet, a tool, a sellout, a nincompoop. So countenancing those who unconditionally support such a person didn't make any sense, and could result in constant, useless fighting.

The same general principle applies to Obama, for some Hill's Villagers.

It's not just the Obama supporters who are not welcome there. Anti-Palin posts are also strictly prohibited. If folks want a forum where they can associate only with people who agree with them, that's fine, but you can't call it a "Kool Aid free zone."

[Horizon]

It's not just the Obama supporters who are not welcome there. Anti-Palin posts are also strictly prohibited. If folks want a forum where they can associate only with people who agree with them, that's fine, but you can't call it a "Kool Aid free zone."

genericstamp! This is true, and try defending someone who breaks one of those rules. You get the boot too.:rolleyes:

[CGP]

Wow, very well put. I personally have found the atmosphere here to be much more hospitable than it was at the end of last year, which I chalk up to people seeing what has happened in this country in the last six months. And the topics are giving me quite a workout, which I like!=D>

That's a good thing.

And it's always helpful to keep those brain cells healthy & active!!

[CGP]

Since the forum name was changed from HFC to CGP, it has reverted back to HCF mentality more. "Barry" is now back for the president's name, World Net Daily is a viable source and the Birth Certificate is a hot topic and everyones top one or two topic of discussion is Hillary. You would think it was July 08. I am waiting for the media oinks sticky to come back as well.

Ah, have to disagree with these observations...

There might be a few people discussing the topics you mentioned, but it's hardly a primary focus...The habits/ways of a few people can't be generalized to an entire forum of people.

But, what irony if your observations were true!

[CGP]

HV has been down for days now. What's going on there?

[Lynne]

Maybe they changed web addresses and those of us visiting other sites failed the loyalty test and were left behind. Sigh.....don't know what to think anymore

[CGP]

Maybe they changed web addresses and those of us visiting other sites failed the loyalty test and were left behind. Sigh.....don't know what to think anymore

People should feel free to visit and participate in other discussion forums without being made to feel disloyal. All sites have something different to offer, a different culture/focus.

[Amy Dugan]

People should feel free to visit and participate in other discussion forums without being made to feel disloyal. All sites have something different to offer, a different culture/focus.

i promote Bill Clinton on all of them. Hillcrats(was clinton dems) went down today without notice and internet explorer could not even find the website. here is what it said
This site and related domains for sale.
hillcrats.com
hillcrat.com
hillcrats.net
hillcrat.net
hillcrats.org
hillcrat.org
clintondems.com
Contact admin@hillcrats.com for more info.

[LadyLazarus]

HV has been down for days now. What's going on there? This is on the homepage of HV

Board is down for routine maintenance.
Our plan is to have the site available to all by Tuesday, 7/21 at Noon EST. We will update this message if the re-open time changes. Thank you for your patience! But given that it's past 12 noon today, I'm not sure what's going on.

It then tells you that the HVblog is still open, yet when you go there, it's also down.

[TheTaoOfBill]

internet explorer could not even find the website.

Internet Explorer has trouble finding a lot of websites :rolleyes:

/firefox fanboy

[Amy Dugan]

Internet Explorer has trouble finding a lot of websites :rolleyes:

/firefox fanboy

that is where i saw hillcrats domain for sale

[CGP]

I should qualify some of my comments above about CGP forum being "open" to people from all sides - obviously people who are abusive, hostile and/or vindictive are not welcome and won't have their accounts re-activated. Thankfully that relates to only a very small number of people.

[greenleaf]

It's not just the Obama supporters who are not welcome there. Anti-Palin posts are also strictly prohibited. If folks want a forum where they can associate only with people who agree with them, that's fine, but you can't call it a "Kool Aid free zone."

If I can respectfully comment, I don't think that anti-Palin posts are/were strictly prohibited at HV. From my experience there, I'd expect sexist and misognistic attacks against any woman to be deleted.

It is a Hillary site so strongly anti-Hillary posts would not last long. The mods are very serious about the policies of no sexism, racism, or homophobia. Sexist language or attacks are taboo.

[Wylie]

HV has been down for days now. What's going on there?

Board is down indefinitely.
We encourage our villagers to visit our supporting sister sites such as thenewagenda.net. We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.

:rolleyes:

[MostPatriotic]

Maybe people might come back here.

[foxyladi]

HV has been down for days now. What's going on there?

Hillbuzz has also been down over a month now.???????????????
makes me wonder if some sites are being hijacked..:confused::confused:

[foxyladi]

Of course. And nice to see you visiting here! You have a Top 5 ranking to defend! ;)

aaaaaaaah!!:e2: Murray,,no one ever gets over their first love..**==hillarystamp!

[RichardMZhlubb]

If I can respectfully comment, I don't think that anti-Palin posts are/were strictly prohibited at HV. From my experience there, I'd expect sexist and misognistic attacks against any woman to be deleted.

It is a Hillary site so strongly anti-Hillary posts would not last long. The mods are very serious about the policies of no sexism, racism, or homophobia. Sexist language or attacks are taboo.

I think the problem is that even the slightest negative statement about Palin is considered sexist over there. I was following the thread discussing Palin's resignation announcement on the day of her speech and the handful of critical posts were all deleted within about 10-15 minutes of posting.

[StacyinBoston]

Hillbuzz has also been down over a month now.???????????????
makes me wonder if some sites are being hijacked..:confused::confused:

That's what I think happened!

[greenleaf]

I think the problem is that even the slightest negative statement about Palin is considered sexist over there. I was following the thread discussing Palin's resignation announcement on the day of her speech and the handful of critical posts were all deleted within about 10-15 minutes of posting.

I understand that you may have found it to be sensitivity in the extreme, but it was an outgrowth of the abuses of the 2008 campaign.

[RichardMZhlubb]

I understand that you may have found it to be sensitivity in the extreme, but it was an outgrowth of the abuses of the 2008 campaign.

It's a private forum and the owners/moderators can limit or restrict content in any way they choose, but no one can reasonably claim that it's a "kool-aid free" forum, as someone did earlier in this thread. If anything, the pro-Palin and anti-Obama kool aid on display over there is far worse than anything I've ever seen on any pro-Obama forum.

[greenleaf]

It's a private forum and the owners/moderators can limit or restrict content in any way they choose, but no one can reasonably claim that it's a "kool-aid free" forum, as someone did earlier in this thread. If anything, the pro-Palin and anti-Obama kool aid on display over there is far worse than anything I've ever seen on any pro-Obama forum.

My take is that it was pro-women in general and pro-Hillary in specific. Some are Palin supporters but many started posts with disclaimers of ideological support for Palin and went on to defend her against unfair media attacks.
I find that the amount of Kool-aid consumption is exaggerated on all sides.
That site is now down indefinitely so . . .

[CGP]

aaaaaaaah!!:e2: Murray,,no one ever gets over their first love..**==hillarystamp!

;) :thumbsup:

[tracker]

This is no longer the hillary clinton forum so I see nothing wrong with HV or anyone else naming their forum after hillary in any way.

:thumbsup:

More than bad etiquette, it's bad ethics, imo! They obviously hope it will work in their favor and don't mind bending (breaking) the unwritten rules of netiquette.[-X And yes, they used HCF before this (real) HCF changed to CGP. That's the issue. No one here is worried about competition between the sites as far as I can tell. And frankly, I'm glad this forum has become Common Ground Politics - the time has come. It faces reality and is a very welcoming name, with worthy goals. :thumbsup:

[tracker]

Yes, you can call some forums kool aid free. Because the forum supports one cadidate or many and excludes Obama, doesn't mean those people drink kool aid. Quite the contrary, many people believe Obama is not credible, worth, eligible or good for this country and therefore they oppose HIM and his policies. Many others are proven much more patriotic, sensible, reformers, etc. such as Sarah Palin. She is not a slight of hand candidate like so many good old boy dems AND repubs. That rubs them all the WRONG way.

There is such a thing as instinct and a sense of what is right or wrong that most people have innately and these are the people who are repulsed by Obama, his ineligibility and a lot more.

Rejecting him does not make some one a kool aid drinker for other candidates!!

It's not just the Obama supporters who are not welcome there. Anti-Palin posts are also strictly prohibited. If folks want a forum where they can associate only with people who agree with them, that's fine, but you can't call it a "Kool Aid free zone."

[RichardMZhlubb]

Yes, you can call some forums kool aid free. Because the forum supports one cadidate or many and excludes Obama, doesn't mean those people drink kool aid. Quite the contrary, many people believe Obama is not credible, worth, eligible or good for this country and therefore they oppose HIM and his policies. Many others are proven much more patriotic, sensible, reformers, etc. such as Sarah Palin. She is not a slight of hand candidate like so many good old boy dems AND repubs. That rubs them all the WRONG way.

There is such a thing as instinct and a sense of what is right or wrong that most people have innately and these are the people who are repulsed by Obama, his ineligibility and a lot more.

Rejecting him does not make some one a kool aid drinker for other candidates!!

Your post does a pretty good job of summarizing the vast majority of the content over there. If, like me, you think this is complete nonsense, it's pretty clear that you're not welcome there.

[CGP]

Your post does a pretty good job of summarizing the vast majority of the content over there. If, like me, you think this is complete nonsense, it's pretty clear that you're not welcome there.

Currently there is no content left over there:
http://www.hillarysvillage.net/

Hopefully the admins at least saved a copy of the MYSQL database or the input of the people who participated there is up in smoke...

[Meg]

Currently there is no content left over there:
http://www.hillarysvillage.net/

Hopefully the admins at least saved a copy of the MYSQL database or the input of the people who participated there is up in smoke...

Oh how's there's something I'd love to say.... ;)

[VotingHillary]

My only comment is this. If the site was hijacked, that to me is the most UNAMERICAN thing you can do. The Constitution protects all voices, not just those in the majority. Hijackers are truly unAmerican because they try to silence dissenting voices.

Be careful of any cheering if this happened to HV...because someday it may be a site you like...it may be your voice being silenced. **==

[CGP]

Whenever a site goes down (especially an anti-Obama one), people automatically think it was "hacked" by "haters".

The admins at HV announced their site was going offline, so I think the "hacked" conspiracy theories pretty much have no foundation.

It's not easy maintaining a forum, especially managing (or not managing) the various dynamics between personalities/participants.

Sometimes the only course of action is to offline for a period of time. Maybe HV will return soon. Who knows.

[Aria]

This is no longer the hillary clinton forum so I see nothing wrong with HV or anyone else naming their forum after hillary in any way.

:thumbsup:

You missed the point. HV took the HCF name before this forum changed to Common Ground Politics. That is what was unethical imo, and that of others.

[Artists4Hillary]

That banner was put up by someone who made a bad mistake. It's gone. Murray, you know why that forum was started, and it wasn't to get at you. No need to be defensive, no offence intended.

[Artists4Hillary]

HV has been down for days now. What's going on there?

Switching domains.

[MostPatriotic]

Switching domains.

Will HV members be able to get on or must we reregister?

[Amy Dugan]

i have seen many from HV over at this site. I really like this site too. i get along with people here and HV
http://www.hillaryvillagers.net/

[CGP]

Will HV members be able to get on or must we reregister?

If they retain the same mysql database you should be able to login with the same username/password you used before.