Just kind of reading this casually, but a question I would have is: if it is K, and obviousely Michael thinks it is for sure, "is there anyway that K could actually now admit it was him?" Just think about what that would take to admit that, and the ramifications.

It seems to me, if it was K then we will not see him proceed with this any where, and it will go away.



>>>No better. There is banning happening on all those sites. It think it is a regular occurance. Some sites use "monitors", people have proven their reliabilty and can monitor a section of the site and "red flag" unwelcomed posters and bring it to the attention of the webmaster who make the final decision. But most of them do not have a chatter section, in order to eliminate some of the "noise" you get here. But some of that noise is sometimes a "welcome' change to the technical aspect of the subjects. Although the interesting element here at UT a good portion of the call for banning is caused in some ways by MVP (so you mentionned) , and your site seems to attract a good bunch of them, more than others anyways. Corrolation between MVPs and banning maybe.
>>
>>This is the sad part. Is it because some benefit from their high profile in regards to that and try to go a little further to the borderline of the Terms & Conditions of this site and, sometimes, go over it. It proves one thing however. No matter the status of one person, we are all human beings and the rules of a site, such as this one, applies to all.
>
>I think we are all in agreement that what "Grover" did was unacceptable, even if there were not formal Terms and Conditions. There is no excuse and the perpetrator should be banned. The discontent is over whether that perpetrator is truly known. If you clear the air completely it will settle the UT down for all of us.
>
>Mike