>>>>I don't your analogy of Nick walking in Michel's workplace and swearing works at all. Michel is running a salon, where people come to talk. Sometimes, conversation gets heated in a salon. You don't throw out everyone who lets a swearword or even an ad hominem argument get by;
>>>>
>>>>Actually, Tamar, that's not true - I recently learned that many CVS pharmacy stores have a rule (though they don't post it) that store managers can ask an individual to leave, if the individual is directing profanity at another - and are authorized to call the police if the person doesn't comply.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But CVS isn't a salon.
>>>
>>>FWIW, I see that I took some liberties with the word "salon." Here's the Merriam-Webster.Com definition:
>>>
>>> 1 : an elegant apartment or living room (as in a fashionable home)
>>>2 : a fashionable assemblage of notables (as literary figures, artists, or statesmen) held by custom at the home of a prominent person
>>>3 a : a hall for exhibition of art b capitalized : an annual exhibition of works of art
>>>4 : a stylish business establishment or shop
>>>
>>>I was aiming at the 2nd meaning, but had a different sense in mind. Ah, dictionary.com offers something closer to what I had in mind:
>>>
>>>2. A periodic gathering of people of social or intellectual distinction.
>>>
>>>IAC, I'm not arguing that we should permit profanity here, just that the analogy of its use as someone walking into Michel's workplace and swearing doesn't work. Michel is specifically running a place designed for people to interact, so it's not like walking into an office and screaming.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Still, the rules are well known. Michel has the right to set the rules, and anyone wishing to use his 'salon', must abide by those rules. If they refuse to do so, they may be removed by Michel. You are right about the analogy not being good enough. When one enters this 'salon', one agrees to abide by the rules. Refusing to do so is valid grounds for removal, imho. The rules here are very well known and whinging about removal after breaking those rules is disingenuous at best.
>>
>>Having said that, I do hope Nick is back with us soon. His outburst (if you can call a written response an 'outburst') seems way out of character. But again, Michel was well within his rights to remove him for having so blatantly broken the rules - salon or no.
>
>His outburst was so uncharacteristic that I momentarily thought someone had hijacked his account.

Someone from your area maybe? ;-)