Nancy,

>I'm not really under any illusions _why_--really--he was suspended.
>No, but then, they aren't really under any obligation to explain themselves.

Oh, I think they are obligated to be able to give a specific reason and relevant messages that caused the suspension.

>It's my understanding that was _after_ getting booted, right?

I assume so from other messages I lurked through last night. And since there are two different headers on his messages that two accounts are involved.

> 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?

I don't think he or anyone else should be suprised the second was shut down so quickly, someone from the "management" is almost always around. He chose to throw that tirade at everyone here. I think Karl's a big enough boy to accept the consequences of the second account suspension. I still don't have enough information to know if the first account should have been suspended.