🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4664b9$7pa@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Cyronwode <cyronwode@aol.com> wrote:
>> Of course, your demands for things like salaries and costs of hardware
>> were just because you were, ummm, curious. That's it. You were curious.
>Yes. That is the case. I was curious. 

If I'm curious about something, I don't rant and rave in public
demanding the information, I politely ask the people who can tell me.

>Just to set the record straight, i did not consider access to the UT
>gateway a "right" -- i was simply trying to determine what its policy was
>toward non-UT users because i felt that there was an inconsistency in the
>application of policy, namely discrimination (different treatment of some)
>based on domain (the name of their commercial service provider).

Let's revisit that original post some:

In article <45efns$p1h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, you wrote:
>The following exchange of e-mail exposes misuse of public funds at a State
                                          ^^^^^^
>University. It concerns all 3.5 million AOL users and countless others who
>post to the internet from commercial domains. 
[...]
>Excuse me? You have blocked your PUBLIC gateway to AOL users? 
                                  ^^^^^^
[...]
>The real point is this: as a public institution, supported by tax-payers'
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(local, state and federal) money, you are telling me that you are unfairly
>and without forewarning discriminating against portions of the public
>simply because of the name of their carrier, WITHOUT TELLING THEM SO, and
>without allowing them to protest this unannounced practice in any way. 
[...]
>Be advised that due to your actions, i lost two posts i wrote -- thus you
>have destroyed my time, the only thing that is truly mine. You vaporized
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>these posts unilaterally, without telling.me. You did not provide the
>normal internet courtesy of bouncing them back so that i could resend them
>via AOL and if i had not inquired about their status, i would have never
>known that you destroyed them. 
>
>Be advised that as a responible citizen who has done no wrong and who pays
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                               ^^^^
>taxes for the support of pubic educational institutions, i take this
 ^^^^^                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>discrimination against myself very personally.
[...]
>I am taking it upon myself to expose your unfair practices and to bring to
>public light your egregious discrimination against those who are too poor
>to have their own corporate internet access, too independent-minded to
>suck at the teat of an .edu account, and too rural to get anything but AOL
>without paying long-distance fees. 
>
>Change your policy or read about yourself in the Austin Chroncicle -- and
>all over the net. 

I can't see how one could read those sections of the article and not
think you are assuming that you have the *right* to use this as a
tax-payer. The second to last paragraph included showes that you don't
want it to bounce you messages, but you want to use it. The not bouncing
of messages was just a brief rudeness from Fletcher.

Note, this is one of the "originals" as you claim since it has reference
to the Austin Chronicle.

>i was right: AOL
>messages were deliberately dropped and AOL e-mail was not returned with a
>bounced mail message. 

So? It's rude, but he doesn't have to do it.

>The only thing i wanted
>to see was fairness and non-discrimination in policy application -- and,
>if that was not deemed feasible, due to abuse of the gateway by some
>people at some domains, then i wanted to see the institution of bounced
>mail messages. 

Well there is certainly no discrimination now. There is no gateway that
can discriminate.

>This attitude is a betrayal of the first principles of anarchy,

I think my view of the net is that it is cooperative anarchy. If it were
a true anarchy, there wouldn't be a net to use.

>Such
>status ranking merely substitutes a new caste-system for the current one
>based upon annual income and skin colour. Any form of caste-system is
>incompatible with anarchy. 

Yep. I admit it, I'm an elitest. The wonder of the system currently in
use is that it's not difficult to move from one caste to another. You
just have to follow the behaviour of the caste. As well, it is based on
mental/social abilities and not on something trivial that a person can
not change.

Ciao,

-- 
Richard Bainter          Mundanely     |    System Analyst        - OMG/CSD
Pug                      Generally     |    Applied Research Labs - U.Texas
   pug@arlut.utexas.edu     |     pug@eden.com     |     {any user}@pug.net
Note: The views may not reflect my employers, or even my own for that matter.