First of all, I did, in fact, answer your question.

Secondly, the denial of communion is a consequence of excommunication.  But that very fact, again, undermines the claimed view of communion that I was responding to. If one admits that denial of communion has, in fact, not only been used, but justified at times, then the larger claim about communion that was made is not accurate. It doesn't necessarily follow that denying communion is the appropriate response to every situation (indeed I also said as much above). You are the one trying to draw the inept reference that because denial of communion is appropriate in 1 situation, that I must be suggesting it is appropriate in another.