Kurt of comebackalive wrote:
"But instead you used the online world to be petty and self centered and now you want to use that reason for banning you as a human rights violation.
Oh, and to make a buck too.
And needless to say I do not want to hear you whining about me publishing your e-mail. I did not publish the kajillion e-mails you sent me before but once it is in my inbox, its mine..and I will do with it as I please. "
The key thing to remember is that I never even wrote any letter for the purpose of your enjoyment, let alone the worlds.
Few people would diagree the proper thing to do is either politely dispose of it in a delete recycle fashion (same as you would) or make a response with the "Reply" button.
But challenging someone on a public message board while denying them a fair chance to reply seems its plausible to suggest that your sole intent was to libel while making a mockery of human rights.
The same as I would be by suggesting you leave a comment for all below (while knowing I have the 'Allow Comments' feature tweaked to : "OFF")
Being petty and self-centered are not good enough causes for libel,harrasement . You can ASSERT your right to publish emails as you please ; without a doubt. But your mere assertion of that as a fact (I will jaywalk on the street today as I please) doesnt make your assertion stand without consequence anymore than mine would be if I dared to test an officers skill in jaywalking in front of him/her.
Bottom line is your casual deference from my assertions were killed dead in the water the minute you decided to violate your own Terms of Service.
So understand this: I really dont care if you violate your own TOS.
But why did you just not say the same words in a return email rather than risk violating the sanctity of principle of your own TOS?
Doesnt that mean you intended to cause harm and inflict malice?
Im waiting.
