>>>I don't know, maybe for the same reason I didn't? Because I'm not Grover. Why PM when you have no association with it?
>
>Why indeed. The problem with that position is that Michel says he is very sure he has his Grover. How do you fit this into your scenario? I had assumed that this is why people asked whether there is evidence for an additional culprit so that KG would not be blamed for the other user's posts as well as his own. If you are saying that KG is completely innocent then we are left with the problem of Michel's certainty.

1) He was sure about Lynda L
2) He has not stated whether or not he ran the same algorithm against all members, but implied not by omission when asked numerous times
3) He has not stated whether or not any other members shared the same ip address as Grover, but implied not by omission when asked
4) Anyone monitoring Grover's posts and then logging in or refreshing the browser after Grover posted would fit the same result as Kevin from his explanation of his algorithm

Michel can be very sure in his own mind, but I am not convinced that he has ruled all other members out.

As I wrote, banning is up to him of course. Merging messages though should have hard, indisputable evidence and even then, I wonder if it breaks any copyright laws? What if Grover is a real person? I don't think messages from one account should be merged with another period, under any circumstances, unless both account holders request it. What is to keep him from arbitrarily merging your messages with mine one day thinking we are one and the same person? or another member? that is what concerns me. Even stopping posting cannot guarantee that because he could assume a new account holder is me or you down the road. I was never told of this risk when I signed up and began posting. Years ago I asked Michel to merge my original account with my new account when I personally requested it. Both accounts were under my name with the same email address. He merged the accounts and deleted my original older account (hence the newer date of this account). That is the only time I think accounts should be merged -- when you can be absolutely certain that both account holders are the same person and both account holders request it.

I can see we do not agree, and that is ok. Not everyone agrees about everything all of the time :o)



>
>Which is why I'm taking no position at all. I am simply picking at your stated position as a good scientist should.
>
>>>I find it amazing that you have no problem with it. Would you see it differently if it happened to you?
>
>I'm not sure why you make either statement. As I keep saying, I'm not competent to take a position and neither are you. Of course I wish it hadn't happened, though I wasn't one of those who complained to Michel to get Grover in trouble. And I've said what I hope I would do if it happened to me.