No he does not have to give any explanation, I agree. However, it appears to me that they are simply asking in public, instead of in private, in order to notify the owner (and other customers) that his decision to not provide service to a customer may have an impact on whether or not they choose to continue to do business with him. They are asking for an explanation because the reason may have an impact on their decision. That is not any different than asking the restaurant owner the same thing. Neither has to respond. Both know that the banning and the reason (or failure to give one) may have an impact on their business. Telling them over and over again that he doesn't have to respond is not telling them anything they don't know. They are simply attempting to make their voices heard and that is their right just as it is Michel's right to listen and respond or not.


>>>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.