Juker, you're not being fair to housetonlively. He raised a valid point and you go around calling him names and attacking him, instead of arguing the point.

He's playing the ball, not the man (that's you, Juker). So why don't you do the same?

For the record, I have always found houstonlively's posts to be insightful. Maybe a bit too direct sometimes for some people's taste, but he never ever plays the man (unlike some people who post here -- some of them, in fact, have resorted to drive-by see more negative posts just to spite individuals they dislike, regardless of how value-laden that person's post/comment is) --- and neither does he call people names.

And houstonlively hardly hijacks posts (I did call him a "blog-jacker" in one my comments elsewhere, but that was done in the spirit of that post at that point in time -- the wink, wink thing).

Ask a good, good friend to look at this (your) post, Juker, and to give you an independent view of the comments from houstonlively and yourself. And don't call him/her names if s/he gives you a view that doesn't jibe in with yours. Do that before you go further with the thrust of your "argument" ....
--------------------------
Hear Juker's so-called "counter-argument" (no, he's not saying these in jest) to rebut the point raised by houstonlively:

"Ouch! It looks like the resident troublemaker has hijacked another blog posting. Constant negitivity, namecalling, complaining, and false accusations. Some leopards never change their stripes.

People of this ilk always try to smear and distort anyone or anything they can because it's an ego rush."

.....

"I absoulutely have nothing to say to this troll.

The management made a mistake when they only banned one of the troublemakers."