>>Lest we forget that this should still be an issue here. I know some, Michel especially, hope that the topic just dies out, but I think it should not. See thread #1300397 if you have been away.
>
>Jay, please read this message!
>
>You should know that every case involving to parts has at least three sides: Part a's side, part b's side, and the truth. You don't know the truth, I don't know the truth. I don't make any judgement here, may I ask what you know that makes you able to judge in this case?
>
>In Norway last year we had a case where a very well known athlete was accused of being involved in a series of crimes. The crimes included bank robberies and the theft of the world famous The Scream painting by Edward Munch, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream. When he was arrested, all kind of people protested and told the police that they were crazy and so on. His father wrote a long letter in all the big newspapers where he said that he had known his son for almost fifty years, and there was no way his son would even kill a fly. But after a few weeks this athlete confessed that he had in deed done everything he was accused for. This "innocent" person now serves 16 years in jail.
>
>A few years ago I didn't find my camera and was absolutely sure that it was stolen. I knew exactly where I had put it, and since I saw no signs of any burglary, I asked everyone in my nearest family who had borrowed it, and where it was. Nobody "confessed", and I got more and more angry since it was an expensive camera. A week later I got a call from a camera repair shop which told me that they had it, and that I could pick it up since it had been repaired. A close friend of mine had borrowed the camera for his vacation, and had broken it. I had completely forgotten that he had asked me to borrow the camera many months earlier, and clearly he had taken it with him after a "wet" party in my house some weeks earlier.
>
>Am I telling this story because I believe KG is lying? Absolutely not. Am I suggesting that MF is lying? Absolutely not. All I am saying is that the truth often is quite different than what it looks like, what you hear and what you believe. I have learnt the hard way that without knowing ALL the facts, no conclusion can be made.

I don't disagree in general, but I still want an explanation as to how he could be banned without warning and without knowing why. My gut tells me that Michel screwed-up and went on a specific path after jumping to conclusions based on some questionable evidence and hearsay. He's not big enough to admit that all might not have been as it seemed and it's now a matter of ego. Am I calling him a liar? No, that would be wrong and probably break some inane rule that I've yet to read about. Am I saying that he should stop trying to hide behind that privacy/legal excuse - since I've already put the possibility that Kevin could relieve him from that threat - and just say what the heck (darn I wish I could swear here!) happened? Absolutely. He won't, but I'm not about to let what I believe is a total personal vandetta against his old nemisis JVP go sneaking down the same dismal road as his integrity.