>>>>Where is the explanation?
>>>
>>>I should have written "was" as I made reference to the first line of my statement which says that it is because each situation is different. In overall, it is related to the severity of the situation. But, you probably have read about it by now in some of my other replies today.
>>
>>More like laughed about it.
>
>Jay, why are you so angry and agressive at Michel about this issue? I think it is really quite simple; what has happened between KevinG and the UT is absolutely none of my (or our) business. This is not a democracy, it is a private venture. It is entirely a matter between them. The UT management has decided that a serious transgression has occured that, in their opinion, has warranted a banning. It is not appropiate for them to disclose this information here for all manner of valid reasons.
>
>Either we believe the UT management are conmpetent and apply the rules fair and square or we must beleive they are biased and/or incompetent. In the former case we should stop calling for a public disclosure of these private matters. In the latter case we should quit the UT and leave. But to keep on hammering away at Michel is not, imho, the most appropiate path to take.

Thanks for that opinion.