>>>Last time I checked this site was owned my Michel and therefor he can do whatever he wants with it.
>
>And IMHO he would be a fool to explain exactly how he identified somebody who went to great lengths to cover their tracks, or to participate any further in these discussions.
>
>As I said earlier, I feel sorry for Kevin but I'm absolutely sure that if he didn't do it, he needs to convince UT management rather than sending smoke signals via proxies here.
>
>I also have another suggestion: limit daily chatter posts to 3 for people who have not had a post marked as a technical solution by a different person in the last month. This is similar to eBay's strategy. It incentivizes contribution, prevents endless tail-chasing as we're seeing here and dis-empowers the saboteurs in the first place.

"UT management" is one person who clearly wants the whole thing to go away. Meanwhile KG's reputation remains besmirched. Not to mention his presence here in a technical capacity. Do you think I read his SQL posts? You bet I do. That would be no excuse if he is the perp but I really don't think he is.

I want to make a suggestion. Michel made a reasonable offer the other day for the offender to fess up and apologize. IMO that would be the adult thing for him or her to do. We are a forgiving society. We respect an admission of guilt, sincere or maybe even not, over a persistent liar. IANM (I am not Michel) but to me a good outcome would be for this chatter regular to be allowed back under strict surveillance.