Like I said earlier, I prefer to pick my fights with care.  This particular issue didn't seem worth getting blacklisted by a publication that I may wish to submit to in the future.  I already know enough to know that editors are often friends with one another and spread "horror stories" about difficult contributors (the blog is a perfect example of this sort of thing).  Unfortunately, there is often more to it than just "doing the right thing for all".  It may sound selfish, but sometimes you have to do what's right for you personally.

I've really just begun playing the publication game on a regular basis.  I really don't think I want to derail my chances of doing something with my writing only a year or so into it.  Maybe it's all small potatoes, and maybe I'll never really make something of it, but I would rather not go around raising the ire of the people I may then submit material to.  Get a reputation as being difficult at one publication and it may just seriously effect your chances of working with other editors as well.  It's akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This is not racial discrimination or the plight of the poor we're talking about here - it's the submission policies of one magazine.  I understand those policies are unfair to international contributors (although they could make a policy of only accepting submissions every other Tuesday if they wished - it is their house, after all), but I don't think it rises to the level of risking my own chances of ever submitting to that publication, or to any publication helmed by an editor that might be on a friendly basis with the editor of the publication in question.

Look at it like a game, a game that's usually played by their rules.  Play outside of the rules and, well, too bad for you.  If you don't like it, play somewhere else.

That's not to say that the rules can't be changed by discussion.  However, trying to force that change may come at a price that some writers are unwilling to pay.

For me personally, trying to change the no-e-sub policy just wasn't worth the risk of getting the reputation of being a difficult contributor.

By the way - I am not necessarily a "go with the flow" kind of guy.  I pulled my daughter out of a Catholic school after I was very displeased with the attitude of the teachers and principal and have been home-schooling her now for a decade.  I was sick of the questionable quality of the education even in a private school.  Home-schooling is beginning to get more respect, but it can still be seen as a rather radical choice.  However, instead of reacting to the problems in the school my daughter attended briefly (and butt my head against the brick walls of an educational institution in meltdown), I acted and decided that the only way I could ensure that she got a quality education was to educate her myself.  Our income was cut in half, we have spent hundreds on school books, and it's been a lot of work, so it wasn't necessarily the "easy way out".  And before that, when I worked in a health lab, I was the only one who had the guts to bring up questions regarding a safety issues and get a rather unsafe policy changed.  And before that, when I worked in a biology lab, I questioned my immediate supervisor regarding his policy of trying to call me up for field work the morning he was going into the field, even though it might not work with my family situation.  Once I discussed this issue with the scientist running the show, a deal was worked out where I would work in the lab, and the other guy would do the field work.

So, don't think for one moment that I am unwilling to fight for what I think is right.  I just personally didn't think this particular instance was worth it.  I don't think this particular fight was a fight worth fighting, at least for me.