http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=397648

Now I'm shaking my head at this. I find it in bad form to "invite"someone to their home, only to have other members of the house kick them out. These are member sselected by the host to keep any eye on the guests. They do not own the house, yet act as if they do. If an argument arises between two guests, I believe the host should have the last word in who stays and who goes. Espically in the case where, the member, (kept in charge to look over the house) was once a guest themselves, and did not get along with the other guests, particularly "guest B". This member later spots "guest B", and then uses his position to kick "guest B" out for arguing with another guest. Meanwhile, the host has not stated his opinion on this, nor reviewed the incident. Other guests take notice of this, and say, "let's leave, it's becoming very hostile in here." They mention another party, and now the host is fuming at the mention of another party, and its address.

What gets me, is how the host later comes out to address his remaing guests and shrugs to say, "I have opened my home to many, and this is how I'm treated. You guests are all here, free of charge, provided with drinks and food. I am a humble man, with a humble home." Yes, the host has opened up his home. But it seems the host takes for granted, that the more the guests arrive, the more the neighbors show up and offer to put up their company logos at a cost. The host also sells "homemade goodies" including monthly news letters of his business. These are guests who have been there since the party started, bought the goodies, long before the party even started. They have brought other guests along to the party, to make it the biggest, and most talked about party on the block. And yes, the host does profit from all of this. Putting someone in charge, just because they asked to be, and then confiding in them to make your decisions, is IMO "bad taste". The host will only argue that he is busy and needs other to watch over the increasing guests. Guest B would not be as angry if it were the host who removed him, and not the in-charge member.

This is just my opinion, and certainly does not reflect those of others, including banned guests. Most of those guest have actually contributed something to this site, I on the other hand, have not. For the most part, it's very likely half this stuff makes no sense whatsoever. I have posted this in RPO forum, because I do not wish for this to become a continued argument, who most will only pick out portions to argue against. Nor do I expect the host to respond, but rather let this die and just slip away. I don't even remember what the point of this is anymore.

I have overstayed my welcome. Randy, thank you for the invitation. The buffet was great.