>>You know, Michel, this isn't about whether you will change the rules. It's obvious that you never would. This is about your seemingly elitist attitude and inability to entertain the possibility of discussion regading anything to do with the administration of UT. I did not ask you if it would change. What I did is ask you why. What makes you feel that one of the "key" successes is the use of "valid" profiles? I actually thought it was the members and their input. Regardless of their names. Silly me.
>
>Of course it's the members.
>
>IMO, pretty much all online fori begin with no rules, or a minimal set of rules. Additional rules come into play when bad stuff begins to happen, as a measure to stop them and to prevent repeating. Now you want Michel to mention Joe Bob et al (if any, I don't remember other cases) and just give people some ideas. Everyone's edgy until this (hurricane season on UT?) passes, and specifically stating what was the reason for identity validation may just launch another avalanche of dispute. I think more rules being questioned is something UT would like to avoid, at least until this passes.
>
>Of course, this is only how I see it - the reality may be quite different. How would I know?

Are you questioning reality or only your perception of it? <g> (because of your participation in some of the MH philosophy threads)

I agree with you, I'm sure he wishes it would just go away - and it will - but then a response is made and it has nothing to do with what I asked. I would rather he not respond than just reiterate his rhetoric.