>Exactly!
>
>It's up to Michel to decide which way to go. Perhaps this will affect his business perhaps it won't.
>
>By holding the reasons that lead to Kevin's banning Michel probably knows that he's making many users angry. But he must have good reasons to hold on those reasons.
>
>But as I said many times. It's his business and HE'S the one deciding who stays and who goes over here. That can be frustrating for many (perhaps big egos) but apparently it won't really matter.
>
>What if Michel gave the reasons. Think about the threads that would be created criticizing those reasons. Decorticated to the bit level. And then replies would go on and on...
>
>Based on replies that I received I thought that it would be nice to know the reasons so I would'nt get banned eventually. And after thinking again I'm not so sure I have to know those reasons. I think that if I keep behaving the way I did since I've been using the UT I should be ok.
>
>I know that I'm on the twit filter of some users. I had heated discussion in the past about VFP. None of those lead me to being banned. Why should that change ?
>
>I think that the key is to respect individuals.

I disagree with your analysis. Saying that Michael must have good reasons is really hard to justify, based on the available evidence. He may have good reason, but to say he must have good reasons can't be supported.

If Michael does give his reasons, and some criticize them, is that so bad? There may well be a number of people who determine that the ban was justified and support Michael.