>Chris, forget about the WMD- I was just jabbing you with a stick! ;-)
>
>For the rest: if somebody is inclined to create trouble, almost anything you express about them can be held against you- or possibly against the venue if it's a juicier target. Saying nothing is a good defense. ;-)
>
>Bear in mind that Michel might be responding to a challenge from a different direction than we might anticipate. Perhaps some of the ad hominem comments made here recently are potentially actionable if they affect reputation or business standing, especially of somebody who takes themselves very seriously and has a snitch against UT to start with. In which case Michel may have no choice but to review comments about others *extremely* carefully and take action to demonstrate that UT has a responsible attitude about enforcing its rules on such behavior. Otherwise UT could be in the gun too.
>
>You're right, we just don't know... but if something like the above is the case then anything Michel might say to anybody will result in messages and threads amplifying the complaint. Say we discover that "Person X" threatened "hostile action Y" based on "Message Z" and accused UT of not enforcing its own rules to prevent such behavior. Say Michel reveals this fact to somebody. Next thing you know the people running these threads are starting more threads attacking "Person X" for their various failings. So now the original complaint is amplified. Saying nothing means he has to put up with all these current threads, but it doesn't keep getting worse. Maybe the people making the most sound need to consider their own effect in this matter. JMHO.

I jab plenty, so I can't complain too much when jabbed back ;).

Michael has already commented on this I believe, and it certainly didn't make the matter any clearer. If anything people walked away with the impression that Kevin created a fake account. Kevin emphatically denies doing that.

I don't think anyone expects Michael to moderate every post on here. I certainly don't. If Michael booted Kevin because he became a headache and Michael found he was spending more time chasing down complaints about Kevin than was worth, I think it's a potentially reasonable argument. For example, if Michael said Kevin generated 20 complaints 2 weeks ago, he warned Kevin, the complaints continued, and he made the decision that keeping Kevin wasn't worth it, I can accept that.

To say that he's not going to comment on it, then possibly insinuate that Kevin created a fake account, just doesn't fly.