He is risen!

He is Risen Indeed!

All of which is irrelevant.

You based your conclusion upon your email communication with SWL.

SWL emailed me and said he was banned. Unless he was lying, I can only assume he is.


In this text, you indicate that you had an email discussion with SWL in which he made this claim. At that point, you dropped your "technical error" possibility because you had direct communication with someone who authoritatively claimed to have been banned.

Which is why I said you were stuck in a binary view of the possibilities, and did not account for:

a. sincerely held yet mistaken belief on the part of SWL;

b. honest error on the part of the report, or reporting agency

c. self-inflicted problem that SWL blames on others