>>But secondguessing "possible" reasons is the wrong way to go IMHO (even if they sound more true than my musings).

>IMO Michel invites speculation with his policy of not posting even a general statement when someone is banned. He doesn't need to go into chapter and verse.

Correct. As to his reasons, at least I can speculate as well, but I can also refrain<g>. I also made clear early on that I am not pleased either with the boycott nor the "execution" of it, but rehashing it ad nauseam won't change anything except turn the tone to a more nagging one.

>We see what happens when there is no explanation at all. That's just human nature and will be hard to prevent, even if it isn't particularly productive.

I think it partially creates uncertainty. No idea if this side effect is wished for or not. Trying to analyze motives for electronic posts based mostly on posts and partially assumed other reasons is not really a way to come to verifyable "results", so at least I will try to stay away from such, unless it is only for a nice rhetoric point or some quipping about language. Thought experiments are nice (see my fascination with primaries) but there you have ongoing reality check and a definite end point.

regards

thomas