Re: HAY Ratch, where is your objective criterion of evidence ?

Joel Davison wrote:
After restoring the original order of posting:

And I guess we all have our own little lines drawn somewhere in the
sand. But they're nothing more than crude symbolic gestures that we do
to make ourselves feel important, and to give our lives more meaning
and purpose.

I guess that explains your response. Thanks for sharing.

I see I hit a nerve. Sorry, I thought you were thicker-skinned than that.


Perhaps it was I who hit the nerve :)

No, you are sadly mistaken once again. That was not meant to be seen as me "drawing a line in the sand". That would not make any sense; now, would it? This should only be understood as an attempt to get you to see that not being able to access the Internet through one particular ISP, but then you are able to access the Internet through another ISP, is not exactly "being censored and harassed".

The fact that I put out the additional cash to circumvent being censored and harassed can hardly be used as a defense for the position you're taking. Though I'm curious if you can understand that fact.

What I'm saying is if you're still able to post here on the Internet, then you don't know anything about "being censored and harassed".

I guess the point you missed, which has played out in other threads, is that I was being both censored and harassed. And if BellSouth/AT&T had been my only access to the Internet, then I wouldn't have been able to post, period. Were it not for Comcast, I would have been squelched.

No, you missed the point I was making. I am well aware of the problem you were having with BS/ATT. Trust me, that is nowhere near what "being censored and harassed" actually denotes.

I'm amazed that someone who knows so little about the situation could make such a claim. So do consider that your frame of reference is based solely upon what you've read here, and not upon the circumstances and facts a whole. As far as I know, there's only one person lurking around here that actually knows *most* of the facts, and it isn't you.

By the way, an associate of mine pointed out something I had completely overlooked; that is, that you had mentioned the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in an earlier post. I want to thank-you for clarifying matters with that very crucial bit of information. For, upon further reflection, I am now sure that I understand what the actual problem here is, and why we are having this misinterpretation of terms.

I gather this is headed down the assembler vs compiler debate path. So, unlike the fuzzy definitions of those terms in this newsgroup, censorship and harassment aren't ambiguously defined. Feel free to explain which terms you, not we, happen to be misinterpreting.

- Scott
.