>>>>Exactly. Must be more to it. He sent me an email, but didn't say what the reason was.
>>>That's because he doesn't *know* what the reason was. He received absolutely no warnings from Michel and had no idea he had been banned until he tried to login last night and got nowhere. He sent Michel an email, who replied that he was banned but gave no reason and warned Kevin not to try and contact him again ... so it's not likely Kevin will be able to find out the reasons for his ban through Michel.
>>
>>Well, it's been clear for a long time that it's not a democracy. I just can't believe Kevin and JVP are banned and I'm still here. Not complaining really, but I think someone is just a wee bit fragile.
>
>
>A few thoughts:
>1) Michel owns the UT and has the power to block entry to whomever he chooses.
>2) If he bans a user, he bans his customer. So, his income suffers.
>3) Banning seems to create ill will in the remaining users.
>4) Freedom of speech is a basic right in our society.
>5) We are adults and are capable of handling ourselves without being judged.
>6) If there is a subject we don't care for we may choose to ignore it just as the owner may.
>7) It might be time to propose that a 'free for all' area be added to the UT. Those who do not care for it may choose not put a check mark beside the option when they set up their forum. An appropriate warning about content, upon checking it, could pop up.
>
>Or maybe I should just not say anything.

You better be careful Grady... <g>