No. I just came upon those posts while looking for something completely unrelated. And it occurred to me that there was something fundamentally wrong with the whole divorce analogy. After a bit of thought, I figured it out and posted a rebuttal. Is that wrong? Should I not do that? WHY? I know. I can only do so much. As it says in the Books of Bokonon: "Sometimes the pool-pah exceeds the power of humans to comment." I'm not starting an argument. I'm just replying to statements that are logically inconsistent, in a thread that is still open. Is that wrong? Should I not do that? WHY? Where is it written that threads or posts have a date beyond which they should not be responded to? I disagree with you on that, Burt. The plain and simple fact is that I only disagree with you when you are mistaken about something and I notice it and have time to set things straight. Same for other folks. Is that wrong? Should I not do that? WHY? Why, thank you! (At age 64, with 51 years as a ham, it's nice to hear such compliments.) ---- Here's the irony: By responding to this thread, you've revived it. Why was it wrong for me to respond, but OK for you? It is fascinating that no one complaining has a rebuttal of what I wrote in post #1339. Instead they attack and insult me for posting in an old thread. Classic ad-hominem logical fallacy (attack the messenger rather than the message). I mean.....in just about every HOA-rules thread that gets started, the discussion sooner or later comes upon the "private contract" argument. And the pro-HOA folks inevitably say that it's wrong to try to change a contract once it has been signed. Yet divorce does that to marriage contracts every day!