>John,
>
>Surely you remember the huge fuss supported by Paddock and others that you created when you were thrown out? You claimed it was a breach of your rights of free speech, a draconian abuse of power, an undemocratic act that went beyond the pale.
>

I felt that way - but in the end, there was no legal basis for my argument.


>
Reviewing Sanders' behavior: first he challenged Mr Goff to a sword-fighting duel. Was this a credible scenario? If so, why are people acting as if banning him from an online forum has resolved it? Think about it.
>

>Next he said he wanted to use a bridge as a latrine in a fashion to belittle you. That is certainly outrageous, and I can appreciate that you probably didn't enjoy it very much... but having attended University yourself, you know very well that many a future Law Professor, Surgeon or even Head of State has behaved in a similar fashion, to the delight of other future civic leaders and with great glee at the outrage displayed by appalled citizens. Again, inappropriate in a forum like this but not the "crime of the century" that some claim.
>
>
It's none of our business anyway. Whatever may or may not have happened is between Michel and his customer.
>

Several points. First, when the profanity and abuse is directed my way, it is 100% my business. Second, Sanders's getting booted from here is more a product of his profanity-laced posts.

I don't find it surprising that you would lead the charge to defend somebody who:

1. Has committed far more seroius transgressions than I and;
2. Has not contributed a single thing by way of scholarship to the community.

John