[sorry the first attempt at this bounced]. Janina, I'm not quite sure what your definition of deliberate discrimination is, but when an Australian subsidiary of a U.S company gets put in the awkward position of being either in breach of .S copyright, or in breach of Australian discrimination law, which RedHat Asia Pacific was, then if not deliberate discrimination, then what? Redhat U.S was made aware of this situation and their response was basically we don't care. (they knew damn well it wasn't going to effect them, and that given the time frame, the chances that i would choose to go the legal path were fairly slim). (They won't be so lucky next time as i know what to expect). I'm not sure how far your ADA goes, but the DDA here effectively requires companies like Redhat to make material they provide to the public (ie people doing their course) accessible to people with a disability. There are precedents here in australia which would indicate that RH Asia Pacific would have come off second best in a legal battle, and very likely at significant expense to them. The thing was, I didn't want money from RH, I wanted an RHCE, and circumstances lead me to take what RedHat was offering (small as that was) and run with it. The truely sad thing was, they then wanted to do pr with me saying how wonderful RedHat was for passing the first blind person in the Asia pacific region through the RHCE course *as-if*. I know what I did was wrong, and I should have stood my ground, but I also had to consider the needs of my employer as well as my own needs. Regards Aaron
