>>>Hi Tore,
>>>
>>>Two problems interpreting your words.
>>>
>>>1) You use the word 'confirmed', which is an indication that you think she located the password in the UT database, but in the rest of your statement you appear to be saying that Naomi cannot have retrieved the password via the UT.
>>>
>>>2) I have read almost all posts and nowhere it is explicitly stated, neither by Naomi nor by Michel.
>>>
>>
>>But it was confirmed by MartinS in another message.
>
>That's not good enough. Martin is not the UT owner. Michel is. How do we know that Martin knows this for sure just because he can't see passwords? This has gone beyond Naomi, who has apologized, and beyond Andy, who has not apologized for some questionable actions on his part, and has become a larger issue. The issue now is this: Will Michel answer questions from users about security precautions the UT has in place? The answer seems to be no. To me, this is disrespectful to his users and arrogant, IMHO.

While you and I usually see eye-to-eye, on this one I disagree. It is my opinion that Martin's word is as good as Michel's word on this particular issue.

I know that many have qualms about the general terseness of Michel's replies to anything relating to UT. I too, frankly, wish that he would be far more verbose and participatory when issues are raised or questions are asked. But I have the very same wish for any business where I might have questions.
And in the vast majority of businesses there isn't even a mechanism to get an issue on their radar in the first place.

How many owners/moderators of online forums do you know of that are any more "forthcoming" than Michel? My experience - admittedly very limited - is that others communicate less with their members/attendees than Michel does.
And this place has a way of growing even the smallest comment into huge threads of hardly related issues. I can't say that I blame him for being frugal with his words. People here can turn a simple compliment into an IED and cause all kinds of collateral damage.