>>>>>>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"
>>>>
>>>>I am curious, too, but a couple of observations ---
>>>>
>>>>1. Michel is not going to say. If he did name the person it would break his practice of years and years.
>>>>
>>>>2. No one's reputation is damaged in my eyes, simply because I don't know who did it. (Even supposing it was a banned ex-member and not some mischievous 15 year old in Minsk). The fact that one person among several may have done something does not cause me to think less of all of them.
>>>
>>>I would like to step in in defense of Jay. I think he found just logging in challenging - I don't think a sophisticated denial of service attack is in his kit box <bg>
>>
>>I get the tongue in cheek, but I just wanted to add that no way is it Kevin. It's not his style and is simply something he would never even contemplate.
>
>I agree. That is especially evident given his stance in the past on illegal online activity and the person responsible owning up to it. I really don't think it was a banned member at all. There isn't anyone who I know of that would do such a thing. I could be wrong, but I would extremely surprised if that were the case. More likely the attacks just came from the same geographical area if there is any similarity at all.

I would also be surprised. OTOH, what reasons are there for launching a DOS attack ?
Viv