Kinda the nature of the beast.

In this case, though, I beg to differ somewhat: It wasn't picking pieces -- I suppose you mean cherry-picking? -- of his commentary. It was taking the key ingredients of his conspiracy cocktail and refuting them. And I have since added a few additional ingredients he didn't consider: The testimony of three board candidates who say they support John Viola and are interested in a contract extension.

Remember what I was rebutting: the conspiracy theory that Lakernick and Farr are out to oust the GM, and will join with hold-over directors Parks and Janasek to make that happen. There's no evidence to support this theory, although there's evidence to support the contrary, which I won't repeat here. It's all been said.

As for the Get Involved Facebook site, I'm just not seeing the evidence it was set up to get Lakernick elected. I don't see much content pushing his candidacy, though if Esther has said kind things about her husband and Rick Farr, that's Esther talking, not the site. And hardly surprising. I would be surprised to see a formal endorsement. 

I doubt if any Facebook page is going to get anyone elected this summer. It might be helpful, or not; that's anyone's guess. Newspaper endorsements last summer were not particularly predictive, so I'm not sure other forms of media that make formal endorsements will be any more predictive this summer. Joe's election poll was off the mark, too, last summer.

You are right: I didn't need to venture into Joe's conspiracy theory, and maybe it would have been wiser to simply let it wither on the vine. But when I see something that strikes me as flat out wrong, I occasionally will feel obligated to comment on it. Vote on facts, policy positions, or perceptions of a candidate, not the baseless contention that Viola's job is at risk if certain candidates are elected. 

Thank you for your kind remarks about enjoying most of my commentaries. Regards. :-)