I ussually do not get involved in these conversations, but I could not resist here.

This is Michels' site and is the only one who has full access to the evidence that is available. Due to the fact that michel does not want to make all of it public as there is a good chance this information can be used in future attempts to mask fake identities, we as users of this site have to realise that its well possible that the evidence is overwhelming.

Though Kevin is a popular guy on this site and many people refuse to believe it was him, there is a possibility that it simply is true. It is also a fact that he has been banned here before for valid reasons. I remember more fake identities created by JVP (Joe Bob) and others in the past as well, so this event would certainly not be unique.

I don't want to take sides here, but attacking michel this way also is not fair. OTOH, I certainly do hope that Kevin is not framed by someone who has an ax to grind with him either.

IMO, if Michel concludes that the evidence is overwhelming, there is little we can do, except to accept it and trust that Michel has made the right decision based upon the information he has. It has, IMO, no use to keep on complaining and nagging about this. It now is between Kevin and Michel to sort it out.

Walter,




>He proceeded with another heartfelt email to me (undoubtedly among other people) restating his innocence and confusion. I truly believe he is innocent here. Maybe Michel prematurely jumped to the wrong conclusion. Maybe a clever hacker with an ax to grind has been playing Michel and all the rest of us like a fiddle. IMO Kevin is a victim. It's like one of those old Hitchcock movies about a falsely accused innocent man. Hopefully like the movies as well the truth will come out.
>
>>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