>1) Karl shouldn't have been suspended if it was because of the quoted profanity (personally I'd have editted it out if it had been my reply).

I'm not really under any illusions _why_--really--he was suspended.

> But we don't have a specific reason the UT management decided to suspend the > account.

No, but then, they aren't really under any obligation to explain themselves.

>2) His subsequent rather childish action of the company name does warrant suspension.

It's my understanding that was _after_ getting booted, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. But, of course, Karl was looking to see how long it would take him to get tossed. 'Course he should have stuck to the *rules* to make his point better. IAC, management sure obliged, huh?

>3) The kind of language being thrown around lately doesn't belong here, there are other places where it is acceptable, and folks are free to go there if they so choose.

Right. Agreed.