Re: rampant offtopic and offensive posts to debian-user
On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:40:08PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:43:08PM +0000, Tyler Smith wrote:
> > > > On 2007-05-19, Roberto C Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 05:51:51PM -0400, Amy Templeton wrote:
> > > > >>=20
> > > > >> If somebody's current provider provides only
> > > > >> POP, should they be forced to switch to another provider
> > > > >> just for the privilege of being on this list?
> > > > >>=20
> > > > >
> > > > > IMAP is better by many measures. However, if you do not
> > > > > require access to your mail from multiple computers or
> > > > > multiple mail clients, then POP is perfectly fine.
> > > >
> > > > I think you missed Amy's point. It's great that there are
> > >
> > > No, you *clearly* missed my point. I was specifically addressing
> > > the technical aspects of IMAP vs POP from a user point of view.
> > > That is why I changed the subject like so:
> >
> > Then you missed the overall point, the human point, of the matter.
> > IMAP may be better, but for many people, they have a lot more to do
> > than to continually adapt their systems and deal with downloading
> > headers first, then deleting, or using other work arounds. The
> > issue of IMAP vs. POP was yours and yours alone and was a technical
> > point that was in response to a larger issue.
>
> Actually, Amy Templeton asked whether someone would have to switch to
> IMAP in order to enjoy those same benefits. In any case, welcome to
> the "bash Roberto festivities." I hope you enjoy your stay. I guess
> now I have to start apologizing for posting *on-topic* on top of
> everything else?
Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason for "bash Roberto
festivities"? Perhaps your behavior is much more offensive to others
than you realize and perhaps they are trying to signal you that they do
not find it acceptable.
Hal
Hal
Reply to: