That was my initial reaction. The difference, in my mind, is that HPH administration was coordinating and "blessing" the actions - in short, it was HPH that was doing it.
Now, admittedly, members are using the board to communicate, but the board is not actively participating, encouraging or regulating those actions. I don't think the board can be held responsible. And as we have seen from the HPH fiasco, the likelihood that our ISP would shut us down is slim-to-none.
Now, if it begins to look like they are using the board to coordinate an "attack" for harrassment purposes, I think we'll need to step in. But I don't see that being the case at the moment.