>>>>On a more serious note, I think Michel is flat out wrong for not disclosing this information.
>>>>
>>>>First let me say that I also don't agree with Kevin's banishment.
>>>>
>>>>Now consider this. If you were a regular at a restaurant for many rears, and one day they said, "We don't want
>>>>you in here ever again!", you would absolutly no options whatsoever. It's a private business and the owner can
>>>>decide who he/she wants in there. Period.
>>>>
>>>>How is this different that then Kevin's access to the UT?
>>>
>>>If I hung out at a restaurant with a friend for many years and the owner told him he wasn't welcome, I would want to know the justification to determine if I should hang out at the restaurant and possibly do more business, or leave with my friend.
>>
>>
>>But the owner would not have to give you one. Just like here at the UT, the owner does not owe anyone an
>>explanation.
>
>Technically? Maybe not, but on a human level, which I rarely see in MF actually, it would be decidedly expected.


Look I'm not on Michel's side. For that matter I'm not on anyone's side. But there seems to be alot of chest
thumping going over this, and my point is that Michel has the right to do what he wants with his business,
regardless of whether you and I agree. Our feelings on it have no bearing on it whatsoever.

There's discussion going on along the lines of Michel posting some kind of explanation. He doesn't have to. Would
it me nice? Sure. But he's well within his right to say no more.