2 weeks ago I believed the forum needed to be changed

[hampton]

You know the feeling, everything's ticking along nicely then you take a break or turn your back for 1 second and when you return all hell's broken loose.
We've had some major break throughs recently.
eg.
William Rodriguez on regional bbc tv & newpapers,
2nd daily mail/evening standard article,
guardian articles & Monbiot attacks,
major bbc radio shows,
beefing up of bbc website coverage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6338551.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm
we've forced the bbc to take the movement seriously because of our campaigning energy, fueled in part by this site.
there's a real buzz at the moment.

maybe we should take a breather and let the dust settle a bit before changing anything drastically.
if it's got us this far, and that's quite a long way, then it's obviously
something of value to the majority of pro-campaign users.

this is snowballing people!

[Stefan]

I think the suggestions Ian Neal highlighted in the london meeting, and on this website should go someway to sorting out the effect this forum has on our public image:

The forum is stripped of 9/11 branding and becomes the "war on terror" or "war of terror" forum

The main site has a private forum attached where campaigners can continue to discuss plans and new evidence

A newsletter update will be posted on the main site to keep the content fresh and keep people using it, making it unnecesary for people to have to trawl through beam weapons and holograms to get the latest news.