Pretty simple to me - I would not care if Howard Stern were banned or not banned. If I had to listen to him, I would care passionately. As long as the off button works, let him do what he does for those who like it.

>No, Michel banned him because he (1) broke several rules, including creating bogus accounts (2) many people complained about him (3) Michel lost tens of thousands of dollars in people who didn't renew their membership specifically because of him.
>
>Just as a follow-up...
>
>Again, I find this hard to believe. For years, this was the place for VFP people to get technical information. It is hard to believe that a substantial # of paying members would have given up the PUTM access because they felt that strongly against John.
>
>I think the Howard-Stern situation applies here. Why do fans listen to Stern? To hear what he'll say next. Why do so many of his detractors listen to him? To hear what he'll say next.
>
>Second, while this isn't scientific....we have roughly five times more people in favor of reinstatement. So even if what Michel is saying "was" true (which I still tend to doubt), I don't believe it would be true today. Keep in mind that Michel (by his own admission) instigated a block of at least the entire client site where John worked - which certainly leads one to question whether he's "that" concerned about potential drop in membership.
>
>So....care to participate in the vote?