>>>>>The statement has been issued for the simple reason of letting people know that it was not our fault. Recently, many members have been released some very bad comments against the site thinking that it was not properly managed and so on. There's nothing else that will be added to the statement.
>>>>
>>>>You have damaged the reputations of one or more banned members, those who are not guilty of DoSing your site.
>>>>
>>>>In your "Terms & Conditions", Rules, "the following are not allowed and are not tolerated:"
>>>>
>>>>#2: "Blasting of other members or any similar behaviour"
>>>
>>>Technically, these people aren't members, but then they are still people. OTOH, I don't see how can Michel explicitly mention any names without falling into some other legal trap (giving all of them the benefit of the same doubt etc), and conclusive proof can't be gained without a warrant, I guess. It's a sticky issue, no matter how you take it, and I guess whichever way it was published Michel would be somehow at fault. Even if he just mentioned "mid East coast" as the region by the IP number, we still wouldn't know whether UT was goffed, jvp'd, or both, or neither.
>>
>>That's why I said, in an earlier post, it would have been better to just say something like "recent technical glitches have been fixed, intermittent performance problems should be gone". I understand the need or desire to vent, but it opens a can of worms.
>
>
>Or "we have been subject to a DOS attack" but not add on the implication thats its a former member of the site.

I agree. Unless he has hard proof that it's a former member, that part should have been left out.