||TOS violation, eh? Well, let's see then.
"Adequacy.org gives permission for its servers to be accessed by HTTP clients specifically designed to represent the logical structure of the served documents in a user readable format, or by mail transport agents legitimately transporting email relevant to the site. Protocol handshake information generated by our servers in a network transaction with your computer and client program, including but not limited to HTTP headers or SMTP handshakes, are Copyright (C) 2001 Adequacy.org; disclosure of the contents of such protocol exchanges is strictly forbidden."
No violation, yet. Let's read on.
"The HTML source to our web pages is also Copyright (C) 2001 Adequacy.org, and is only licensed to you for the purposes of reading and responding to Adequacy.org content, not for direct examination of said HTML source. Disclosure of the HTML source of any Adequacy.org page beyond the perusal of article and comment content is strictly forbidden."
Again, no violation, yet. Continuing...
"Any means of accessing Adequacy.org which violates these permissions, including but not limited to telnet access to any port, port scans, operating system detection programs, or any client or client feature specifically designed to display HTTP header information in a normal network transaction with our servers, or to display or store the physical structure of the HTML documents served (as opposed to generating a user-visible display out of the logical structure), are access control circumvention devices and thus not allowed under the provisions of the DMCA. Use of such devices on our site shall constitute unauthorized access (a.k.a. "hacking"). An examples of such client devices is the wget program, which is by design does not display protocol information nor render the HTML document for user consumption, or the "Display Source" feature of Web browsers."
Still, no violation, yet. But wait, here's something.
"Also, we reserve the right to remove comments deemed inappropriate in tone, factually false, or in violation of laws. We recognize this is an extreme measure, and will thus apply it sparingly."
For those who haven't read my post before the Censorship took place, it was a piece of encrypted text prefaced by the statement that it was protected by the U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The editors deleted it for the stated reason that "it was gibberish", which it was clearly not, and because of "a false claim as to the legal status". Unless the editor in question happens to be a lawyer, which I doubt, he can not accurately make that statement.
Therefore, what has happened here is censorship, pure and simple. The original post was not "inappropriate in tone, factually false, or in violation of laws". The only logical conclusion is censorship. I don't pretend to know why this was really done, nor do I give an unwashed rat's ass. I will then require the editors to restore my original post to the way it was intended to be presented. I will also require an apology by the editors for the censorship and a promise not to let it happen again.
Copyright 2001, totalandcomplete.
Any unauthorized use of this post, as a whole or in part, is prohibited. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest e