But you can't come into Jim's house and limit the speech of his guests...that's what Donna wished to do.
The content of Donna's post is NOT her domain, it's Jim's. Otherwise, Donna would have the ability to censor, or even pull individual posts, or even the entire thread. She doesn't.
Under the informal "rules" of the forum, articles are posted, then people are given the opportunity to freely comment, this ability is given by the site's owner, and can't be negated by Donna because this is "her thread".
She has no way of censoring you and it would be up to Jim or his assigns to do something if the rules were broken. What she wished to do matters not since she had no way of doing that. Let her post what she wants, you post what you want, let Jim or the moderators decide if it's correct or not.
That's not where I was going anyway. You claimed that not even the Congress can abridge freedom of religion but She thought she could. Congress is bound by the Constitution, she is not.
She can start a thread here "No Hindus allowed" and she hasn't violated anyone's freedom of religion. Jim or someone will just pull the thread, she has no power here. She can go on Usenet and do the same, depending on the group it may or may not be allowed or ignored, again she hasn't violated anyone's rights. She can post a sign in her house saying that and their she can enforce it, again no voilation. She can even put a sign up in a public place, she still wouldn't violate any single person's freedom of religion but she would probably be breaking a bevy of laws.
So in finish, another person no matter what the case cannot violate your Constitutional rights, only the government can do that, they can break laws which protect those rights but it is incorrect to say this or that person has violated my Constitutional right to free speech or religion. Government includes any federal, state, county, or local governmental agency and persons acting for them.
You know, you are so wrong about the whole underlying issue that you started and you are just not getting it. You seem to be trying to deny me my own freedom to respond to you as you first responded to me. You seem to want me to curtail my free speech rights. Why don't you try to read through my posts and point out the exact sentence where I forbid you to ever respond to me again. You simply cannot do it because such a phrase (and my power to enforce such a demand!) doesn't exist, as you allude to in your later posts to others.
Is what you really want this: for me not to be rude to you with my words as you were first rude to me? Well, we are both guilty of child like behaviour, aren't we? It is okay to resort to that once in awhile; it doesn't make you a bad person, just human. As an aside, your being Cuban had not a thing to do with the short reference, it had all to do with a possible "napolean-related complex. Afterall, with my half Italian blood, there is a 99 % chance you are taller than me!
Anyway, I have read many of your posts and you are combative and insert many personal adjectives in your heated posts. For a mild example, you called someone just the other day "Another net nanny wannabe..." So, now that I think I know where you are coming from, I feel better. You were not singling me out.
What is it that you do not entirely understand about my protesting your sarcasm in your final sentence in your first post to me? The sarcasm; "it's not the economy, it's the SARCASM, stupid." Since you later admit that I did search the title and found no matches, then what is there to "learn" as far as searches? And I followed the format of many other posters who habitually post an article after searching, but add a similar "preamble" just to apologetically cover themselves, knowing that search engines are not always 100 percent.
I have noticed that this thread has received more replies centering on the editorial itself -- not counting the messages of you and I -- than the other threads you found under a title I never received. That in and of itself is a good thing. The thread could have been pulled, I do not know why it wasn't, but I am glad people are reading the editorial. The absolute best addition besides the thought-provoking post of kjenerette, IMHO, is the original artilce posted a few moments ago by RonDog -- with the original title!