>>>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.
>

I agree it isn't rational behavior. All I'm saying is it's human nature, which is not always rational.

Since you mentioned the primaries, this morning's news has rekindled my irritation at the Clintons. The other day Bill Clinton publicly floated the idea of Hillary as President and Obama as VP as a "dream ticket." That's a lot of chutzpah right there for the trailing candidate to talk about offering the vice presidency to the leading candidate. (Who in their right mind would want to be VP to Hillary anyway, when she is married to a hands on ex-President? You would be one step above dogcatcher). Obama responded with his customary good humor, saying he didn't understand why they would want him to be VP if he is so unqualified to be president. He killed the idea unequivocally. Then Hillary's campaign manager said Hillary wouldn't consider him anyway, since he has not proven he is up to the job. (And Hillary has? I guess she includes those trips she went on with Bill in the foreign policy experience she loves to talk about). That was the definition of sour grapes. Grrrr, they make me mad! Even in a losing position they never get over their haughtiness.