> email@example.com wrote:
> > I'm neither an official nor a semi-official nor any other kind
of subscriber than who I've stated I am on a number of occasions
since I began writing articles to a.r.s..
> You're here, you claim to be a Scn in good standing, ordinary Scns
have been told not to post to ars else they lose their good standing, what other conclusion can be drawn?
Here are some statements of fact
for you and for anyone else who might
be interested in taking them into consideration.
I've been here for over a year.
I was, and I remain, a Sci't in good
No one asked me here. No one has
asked me to leave or to remain. No
Sci't has communicated to me that there might be any consequences
whatsoever either to my having been here or to my remaining here.
No one tells me what to write or
what not to write. No one has "hatted"
me to participate here. No one has given me authorisation to be here.
No Sci't has communicated to me that they disapprove of my being here.
I've written on a number of
occasions that any Sci't is free to
participate in a.r.s. discussion if that's what he wants and cares to
do. And if, obviously, he's prepared to be responsible for doing so and
for what he communicates. And by this I mean nothing other than what
anyone else might mean by such a statement as it might concern
participating in any activity and assuming one's responsibilities for
No Sci't has communicated to me
anything contrary to the paragraph above
since I began making this statement here nearly eight months ago. I
didn't then, and I don't now, expect any Sci't to do so. If, however, a
Sci't ever might, I'd be pleased to set him straight.
The only persons who have
communicated to me anything contrary to what
I've described in the penultimate paragraph are some ex-Sci'ts and some
The most notable is Warrior. But
then Warrior has his head so firmly up
his bot on this subject, that he seem incapable of getting it out long
enough to understand anything I communicate to him. If he ever manages
a more enduring feat of head-extrication -- but that doesn't currently
seem likely, so why bother at this point to even speculate.
I've no problem with
anyone here being, or remaining, sceptical about
anything I've written above or anything else I've written. It would,
however, behoove anyone who would challenge the veracity of any of my
statements of fact to do so without at the same time engaging in the
robotic assumptions, the robotic think, and the robotic allegations of
which these same people normally accuse Sci'ts.