>>Michel has told us several times, and I know enough law to understand that he is right. People sue restaurants because the coffee is to hot, and tobacco companies because they overlooked the zillions of warning they had read. Do I need to give more examples?
>
>Yes, I believe you do, as I don't think they apply in this case. I don't believe any of the defendants in your example were sued because they gave an explanation of what occurred. In other words, it wasn't what McDonald's said about the coffee spilling incident that lead them to get sued.
>
>In this case, I don't see how an explanation from Michael could be the cause of him getting sued. What could Michael possibly say that would lead him to get sued in this instance? I'm at a loss.

A hint: Why do you think the police say "Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"?

>>>I don't see it as a waste of time. I think Kevin made valuable contributions to this site. Because of that, I would like to know why he is no longer here.
>>
>>That question has aleady been asked umpty times, and Michel has publically stated, more than once, that he can't say anything more in this case. Which part of the word "no" is it that you don't understand?
>
>I usually have a problem with the word "no" when it's not attached to an explanation. We're a bunch of rebels over here in America though, so maybe it's just a cultural thing.

Some people need an explanation to everything, other people are smarter. Pick your category.

Now may I please leave this thread?