>None of my business really, but to get JVP back you'd need to convince Michel it is in the interests of this forum. This thread doesn't seem likely to achieve that.
>
>FWIW, IMHO Michel has been entirely consistent in his behavior regarding these matters for a decade. When he bans somebody, usually he doesn't announce it. In fact, when high-profile bannings were made public, generally it was by a sympathetic fellow traveller with Michel refusing to comment. If his behavior is to be criticised, to whom are we comparing him? If you consider the behavior of certain other forum emperors who ban or seek to ban people on the flimsiest pretext, then M's behavior seems positively benevolent. ;-)
>
>If Michel is reading this, perhaps the time has come to "turn the other cheek" and allow JVP a 3rd chance. KG reckons he's changed. Maybe he has- and maybe he won't immediately slap the turned cheek. ;-) Who knows? Maybe his new legal experience includes some really cool advice about the directions IP and judicial decisions are going. Certainly allowing him back amplifies the comparison between UT and certain of its detractors.

Is there any point it starting this up again? The legal phrase that comes to mind is "asked and answered." There has been ample discussion since Kevin raised the idea of reinstating John. Michel gave a clear answer which didn't seem to suggest any possibility of reinstatement. I don't see the point of taking the discussion back to square one as though it's a clean sheet of paper. I was one of those in favor of giving John another chance but think it's time to leave this topic behind.