>>>>>>>Your joke was a silly one. don't try to make a fool, a nimrod, of me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't worry Peter, I don't need to.
>>>>>
>>>>>Implying...?
>>>>
>>>>You're a nice enough guy, Peter, but on the issue of UT/Michel, you are wrong. Enough people have said as much, but you continue to argue it. It's foolish behavior, but understandable because your ego was bruised. Nimrod was probably a little strong. Sorry about that much anyway.
>>>
>>>Jay, can you point out to me what's wrong in what I wrote? I'd appreciate it if you first outline what you think I wrote/argued and then give the arguments that prove me wrong.
>>
>>Let me take a crack. You said that Michel should let us know when he goes on vacation and who he is leaving in charge. What you said is not 'wrong', it's just pointless. As I asked you in my response (to which you didn't reply btw), does the manager of your ISP tell you when he's going on vacation, and if not have you written to him to complain?
>
>Alan,
>
>Excuse me for not having replied there. Here's my reply.
>
>I'm not interested in the reason (vacation, party, whatever) for a 'long' leave. I'm not even interested in knowing he's on a leave. However, I'm of opinion that people here who address Michel actually address the management or moderator and have a right (at least the paying members) to expect a reply within a certain timeframe, no matter who actually gives it. The reaction can be by Michel or by someone else who's in charge at that moment. I'm of opinion that a serious business, including the UT, must make arrangements for such cases.

And I'm sure Michel does make such arrangements, but that's a very different thing than asking him to let us know in advance if he's going on vacation and who he has left in charge - which is what you suggested in your orginal post.

>About the ISP example: I don't care who my contact there is, but I do care that contact is possible all the time. It would be completely unacceptible for me if all people there where away from their seats during a long period. And in their case 'long' is one hour or even less.

Again, I don't see where you got the idea that Michel makes no such provisions for when he is away. I still don't see why he needs to tell us ahead of time.

>In all offices where I worked and also where I work now, it's normal behavior to let Outlook return an Out-of-Office reply that contains info about the person(s) that can be called during the OoO period.

Did you send Michel a PM while he was away and got no response, or did you just assume for whatever reason that it would be that way?

>Remember, some here are non-paying, others, like me, are paying members. I'm of opinion that the service of this business is worth every penny (and perhaps even more), but it can best be approached as a serious business. The UT deserves that attitude of its customers.

Certainly I agree that Michel should act in a businesslike manner, but I saw no evidence that he did not prior to your message telling him he should tell us ahead of time.

Now, having said all that, I agree with those who are a little frustrated that Michel has steadfastly refused to directly answer the question as to whether or not there are people beside himself who can see our passwords.