As the target of his distress, I am not an unbiased observer of Lurker's banishment. And certainly it is/was a judgment call, but I agree with No Bear's decision.

His major violation in my opinion was in respect to this provision in Rule 5: repetition of the same question, fact or opinion over and over after a response has been provided

At least three of us explained in detail to Lurker why his accusation that buying calls is for "suckers" was unjustified and factually incorrect. I did so myself more than once and suggested, also more than once, we take the discussion of option trading to the OT forum. But Lurker pressed his point repeatedly until Pam was obliged to defend her trading strategy.

That should not have been necessary. Lurker's intransigence was insensitive and discourteous.

A case can be made it was a close call, but I believe Lurker violated the Rules of Use and was appropriately banished.

Let's get back to talking about Crystallex, not options trading.