Re: clarity

[Owen DeLong]

--On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:39 +0000 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com 
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:13:16AM -0700, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> > On April 26, 2005 11:36 pm, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > > I think it's absurd.  I expect my water delivery company not to add
> > > > polutants in transit.  I expect my water production company to
> > > > provide clean water.
> > >
> > >         er.. bad analogy warning... please take a sample of tap water
> > >         to an independent lab for analysis...  and find out just what
> > >         the water company is putting into your water.
> >
> > Actually that _is_ a bad analogy.
> >
> > According to my sister (who works in that area as a regional water
> > expert), tap-water is held to higher standards than bottled water.
> > In Canada at least... ymmv.
> >
> > cheers,
> > --dr
> 		perhaps you mis-read.  water companies -always-
> 	add things to water, to kill off germs, balance mineral content,
> 	etc..  they do this to -meet- the "higher" standards.
> 	and by their tampering, they pollute the water...
> 	their pollution may make the water drinkable and safe.
> 	does n ot change the fact that the water was tampered with.
Bill, I was very specific about transit.

Yes, most water transit companies are also the water supply company, but,
in my analogy, and, in some areas, as a matter of fact, they are not the
same.  The chemical tampering of which you speak is done by the water
supply company at the supply point before it is put in the pipes for
transit to the end user.

The water delivery company runs said pipes, and, my expectation from them
is that they deliver what they got from the water supply company without
any additional contaminants.

Think of the web hoster as a water supply company.  The household user
is an end user.  The ISP is merely a pipeline.

Owen

> --bill

Attachment: pgp00025.pgp
Description: PGP signature