T2T2

Which article? MC..

I'd have to say once a pro, always a pro. Just my opinion, which ....

Once a prostitute...

At one point in her life, Dr. Maya Angelou worked as a prostitute.

Which article? MC..

I'd have to say once a pro, always a pro. Just my opinion, which ....

The Houston Press article referenced in Post #1.

Once a prostitute...

"Once a prostitute... " not necessarily always one.

I question how well the information and sources for this article were checked out before publicly damning someone.

Please tell me this is a different individual than in the story:

http://www.hcdistric...lic/Search.aspx

choose the "criminal" tab

for defendant, enter "harris, jacqueline p"

search, then click on the link under "style"

a new window will open, then click on the "Criminal History" tab

When first banned, I could not even access the "White Linen Fight" article though I could read other articles on HP (the previous pic in post #71 shows how the article itself was inaccessible). Then later the site switched to me being able to access the article but still not being able to access the system. Please see second photo attached here where it states in four places, "Your IP address has been banned from accessing the system.".

Additionally, I will re-iterate that I am no longer banned as I originally stated in post #71:

At one point late last night, I was banned from Houston Press. Please see attached picture.

Today however, I'm no longer banned. Thank you.

T2T2 — Hey, I'm sending you a private message, That is certainly not normal behavior for our site, even if someone *had* been banned.

When first banned, I could not even access the "White Linen Fight" article though I could read other articles on HP (the previous pic in post #71 shows how the article itself was inaccessible). Then later the site switched to me being able to access the article but still not being able to access the system. Please see second photo attached here where it states in four places, "Your IP address has been banned from accessing the system.".

CLARIFICATION: I am no longer banned. The 2 screen shots that I've posted were taken late last night.

Hey, T2T2, this is Brittanie, web editor for the Press. I haven't banned your IP. In fact, I haven't banned anyone since we switched to the new commenting system (see below). John doesn't have comment moderation abilities.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble commenting, but I can assure you, you haven't been banned.

(Edit: Well, the image was showing up at first, but here's the direct link so you can see what I mean. http://media.houston...m/8107428.0.jpg)

At one point late last night, I was banned from Houston Press. Please see attached picture.

Today however, I'm no longer banned. Thank you.

I do not know what I did that would warrant this but, with no warning, I no longer can even view the Houston Press article as this is the message I receive:

"Your IP address has been banned from accessing this system"

I would really like to know what I did because I was trying to be as thought out as possible in my postings without any inflammatory statements. Have any of you that may have posted in their comments section been banned as well?

It is interesting that I now can read the article but I still get this message, "Your IP address has been banned from accessing this system" and am unable to sign in or leave a comment. I am really amazed.

In the article, Lomax states, "Cohen posted that pre-emptive strike against this story," and then quotes from this "strike."

However, this "strike" also states that there were 3 board members that were suggested to Lomax to interview and that only 1 was contacted and the other 2 sought to contact him but he did not contact them in return.

In the story, the only mention I see of these 3 board members is, " By that time, Cohen says, some of his supporters were gone from the board". Why is the one that was contacted not referenced in the article and why were the other two not even interviewed?

I want to know what those 3 board members have to say.

Additionally, regarding the implication of fraud, were there mistakes or were there deceptions? Can intent be proven?

If information is going to damn someone and tear at a community, this information needs to be as accurate and as thorough as possible. Every detail.

I do not know what I did that would warrant this but, with no warning, I no longer can even view the Houston Press article as this is the message I receive:

"Your IP address has been banned from accessing this system"

I would really like to know what I did because I was trying to be as thought out as possible in my postings without any inflammatory statements. Have any of you that may have posted in their comments section been banned as well?

Doing a search with the TABC for the address of the Boom Boom Room has interesting results.

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx

It shows the prior owner and business names. And it shows the current owner as "EL MACHETE INC.".

Per TABC, the information regarding the address of the Boom Boom Room includes a violation dated July 1999 for the previous business, Reina's Bar. Per HCAD, prior to that date, Harris became the property owner in October of 1998 (then to Walter E Shannon in 2000 and then to Wildchild Properties in 2005 - whose mailing address is listed as being owned by Shannon).

The below link (reliability of that info is unknown) shows linkages between Harris, Shannon, and three businesses: Wildchild Properties, El Machete, and Strangelove Properties.

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/Houston/strangelove-properties-llc/37124579.aspx

The owner name of the original business, Reina's Bar, listed with the TABC is not the same as the original owner name of the property listed with HCAD. So which referenced owner was/is supposedly "mafia connected" - the original business owner or the original property owner? It appears that the business owner may have possibly been renting the property. Whoever is not "mafia connected" may not want to be thought of as such since these names are available as public information.

Hello, Thank you for this topic.

I would like to share here what I posted in the comments section of the article:

"Cohen says he wanted to go back to the basics and have the event be by and for the Heights merchants ...."

"For her part, Betz believes White Linen Night has strayed far from the event's roots. 'We wanted this event to be for the community, not just one person.' She and Guide believe that the event could be even better than it is were it handled by a professional event planner, one who did not have a vested interest in an art market."

Owning an art market that offers booth space appears to qualify as being a merchant. A merchant who steps into the role of being the event's coordinator would appear to have two roles that can co-exist.

Local merchants seem to have a greater "vested interest" in the operations of WLN than an event planner would. Merchants proactively working together in their local area may be the ideal grass roots effort to sustain and enhance their community and livelihoods.

The art market adds a beneficial layer to the event by providing even more to enjoy while strolling down a closed street festival.

WLN is an event strong enough to sell itself without "fraud". When the coordinator has a long standing, current, and future interest in the community as a merchant via his art market, risking his livelihood and social ties is too high a wager to commit "fraud" over something that can easily sell itself.

It appears that a few people are trying to socially execute someone by twisting human fallibility into something criminal and malicious.