chriszf says nothing to the contrary in the article. We are given the facts: 1) You may only get in if you are on the list (of names) and 2) Student X did not get in.
There are certainly more than two facts in those 500 words. Some relevant ones:
1. chriszf wasn't aware of the guest list requirement at the gate
2. No one at Yelp told him of this in response to his inquiries
3. Yelp was provided with a guest list
4. The security guard said "undisclosed security risk", not "not on the list"
5. Everyone except this student got in without a hitch
6. chriszf came to the conclusion that, since the only information Yelp had on her was her name (due to the guest list), that that was why they had barred her.
Fact 6 implies that chriszf did check the guest list (as later confirmed here). I'm just wondering at how, especially in spite of facts 2 and 4, so many people decided that the most logical conclusion was that chriszf is an idiot that is unable to confirm whether a student's name appears on a guest list.
There are many reasons for a name to not be on a guest list. I never implied anyone was an idiot. Not one of the items listed confirm whether or not student x's name is on the list.
chriszf was able to come to the conclusion you state because chriszf had more information than was written in the blog post.
But why did you come to the conclusion that only possible problem was that she absolutely must not have been on the guest list, when the entire point of the post was that Yelp was excluding people based solely on their name?
Did you ever get to the bottom of why it wasn't on the guest list?
Did you ask the security guard (or did the guard offer) to get someone with authority to rectify the situation?