> From: Nathaniel Borenstein > ... you > can't afford an expensive connection ... > ... it's not > primarily about property rights, it's about our right to choose to > communicate with each other. If the second were true, the first would be irrelevant. That the first is relevant shows the "right to choose to communicate" is nonsense, except in the same sense as the costs of gasoline and real estate limit your right to travel, live, and work where you want. > PS -- Are you really rejecting all mail from comcast.net? Just > curious, that's a lot of people. And if it's guppylake.com, it would > have been nice if someone had told me when I was blacklisted, seeing as > how I'm the administrator. I suspect it is Comcast, but in the same hypothetical, contrary to facts spirit as your other questions, let's assume that it is guppylake.com. How would you be entitled to or even just expect notification? If I set my (non-existent) caller-ID filters to reject phone calls from you, would you be entitled to or expect a notice? Even if you were a telemarketer, why would you care? What if Qwest did the rejecting for me? I suspect your answers for the two media differ and that you have not considered your position on Internet access except from an emotional sense of entitlement and of hurt and outrage at being snubbed by various blacklists. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx