Open(ed) letter from Dr.T

[brian.hammack@rook.wa.com (Brian Hammack)]

 Dr. Tom was a marked (and bookmarked) man:

    | Subject: MUSHROOM - I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE!

I don't do dirtywork and I don't get involved in csa2's juvenility.
This has been quoted publicly so that others may act or not (you said
pass around the GIF; this is the next best thing IMHO).

    | is highly in order over this baby.  The gif is what I view via
    | Netscape when I'm trying to access the Apple II resource from
    | Nathan's web site.

Thanks for the GIF.  That is HARSH, son.  Didn't know one could block
individual domains accessing a website...  No doubt you're pissed!
Has anyone else out there come across the "You can't enter Nathan
Mates' website because you're a known associate of Dr. Tom" screen?

 CN(| Not only am I instituting civil litigation against him for;
    | slander, libel, def. of character and violations of freedom of
    | information, unlawful restriction to public computer information,
    | etc. - plus a restraining order, but, I'm waging an all out 'NO
    | HOLD BARED WAR' against him over this one - a battle to the DEATH.

Now, I'm not defending Nathan or his actions since he is a self-
righteous prick when he puts his mind to it, but...

 - Slander, libel, defamation:  Give it a whirl.  I couldn't say
whether any court of law would rule he said anything truly defamatory;
you would have to prove that you aren't a drug user and a software
pirate though, and that other thing is pretty much subjective.

 - Violation of freedom of information:  Show me where this is
guaranteed in the books.  The First Amendment applies more clearly to
his right to say it.  I've known some sysops who were absolute assholes
to their users, who defended their actions with the statement that this
is NOT a public forum, this is a PRIVATELY HELD forum accessable by the
public, or in one's words "this is my house and I let you in; abide by
my rules or I kick you out."  Just because a website exists does not
make it a public entity; see what you get if you connect with KeyBank's
website, which is where they do their personnel applications and is not
a big advertisement of their services like one would assume.  It's
within a web-creator's or a domain's right to lock out a user or domain.
Can say that a blacklist of "known associates" may problematic, but any
person who can't get on Nathan's site from one address can sure as heck
get on through another -- personally, I'd be using the library's Lynx,
and it took a couple letters to my sysop to get my mail from users of
Hotmail.com to again come to my box since his server was blocking that
domain's input.  Censorship?  Not intentionally; spamblock gone too far.

 - Restraining order?  Seems to me the guy doesn't want you to talk to
him, which makes a statement the other way around academic.

 - "No Hold Bared" ... you mean no holds barred.  Thanks for the :).

 - You're going to get down and dirty?  This does not prove you to be
morally superior, it puts you in the same bucket of muck.  Find another
way to combat being slighted.  My advice to you and all is.....

Have a chuckle at Nathan's folly, fire off those letters to the admin of
visi.com for the message you received speaking ill of you, and get as
dirty as you want but DO NOT DO IT IN PUBLIC PUH-LEEZE, THE REST OF US
DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FIG-NEWTON AND VIEW A FLAMEWAR THE SAME WAY WE VIEW
ANY OTHER "we paid for this access and all the content her is offtopic"
SPAM.  LEAVE THE REST OF US OUT OF THE Nate vs. Dr Tom TIRADES, PLEASE.

This is sixty-five lines more than I'd prefer to add to your fray.

 * 2qwk! 2.04 * O Lord, protect me from those to whom You speak directly.
--                                                                   -- 
yet another annoying post by brian.hammack@rook.wa.com -- deal with it.