

And it is a damn good thing that she did post it since she claims to represent
people in rec.sport.hockey.



Her sole purpose in mentioning the net, as Steve Gallichio has already 
pointed out, is to lend weight to her points through association with the
internet.  There is no other reason to mention the internet.  This is 
misrepresentation and if the internet was a private corporation Alison
would be leaving herself wide open to all kinds of civil suits.


This is not a letter.  It is a petition claiming to represent a large
proportion of rec.sport.hockey users, and by implication, a significant
number of internet users.  65 names can in no way be considered a 
"large" proportion of rec.sport.hockey which, while we have no way of
counting actual readership, is accessible to hundreds of thousands of
people.  65 persons is no more than a fly's fart in a windstorm.
 


Gee.  You looked up "large" in the dictionary?  What next?  Two syllable 
words?


Let me suggest that the only place you are likely to envy the magnitude of 
65 is when you are looking for ways to beef up your IQ scores.



As I said, he *might* be impressed by the size of the list of names.  But 
it would have to be considerably larger.  But even this definition does
not account for the original context from which you lifted this sentence.


Well then what the hell is your point?  You don't really know if you have
an opinion about the hockey issue but you do know that you don't like me.  
Is that it?


-- 