[PLUG] Webmail server suggestions

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Thu, 6 May 2004, Michael Robinson wrote:
> >I suppose if you're extremely close-minded and only accept ideas that
> >you already know you're going to accept (like, say, a religious
> >person), then it makes sense... otherwise, it's lunacy.
> >
> Oh I see, religion is the problem for everything.

Not religion, religiosity.  I'm using the term in the generic sense, as
one might describe Emacs zealots as "religious".

In a sense, the term is meant as the opposite of, say, "scientific".
While the scientific method is to observe phenomena and form theories and
derive abstractions from the observations, religious thought requires one
to interpret the phenomena in the context of the abstractions and existing
theories.  One does not take a religious belief, test it, then dismiss it
if the test fails.  The belief is constant while the world shifts instead
of shifting beliefs around more and more understanding of a constant
world.

This has little to do with spirituality.

> Whether or not a person is religious has less than everything to do with
> what they are aware of or accepting of.

I'm not sure how to parse that sentence.

> This is a broad statement that doesn't in my opinion pass the test of
> bigotry.

Nor that one.  If it doesn't pass the test of bigotry, does that mean it
cannot be labelled bigotry (for failing the test)?  Your ambiguity
confounds.

> There are some people who believe that their religious view must be
> foisted on others politically.  I don't.

Uh... wha?  A religious view requires all other understanding to be
interpreted within the context of faith.  I don't give a hang one way or
the other if you or anyone else attempts to foist their religious views on
others.  I trust that the theories of the Enlightenment (including the
scientific method) have nearly become deeply enough ingrained in the
cultural fabric to prevent full-scale Inquisition and the like.  Enough
people are capable of judging for themselves that the irrational can be
allowed to do as they please without fear of infecting the rest of
civilization.

> Radical Muslims do.  That's why we're losing troops in Iraq now.  No
> matter how people feel about Iraq, I hope they see the courage of a lot
> of the troops that are over there.

Wow.  Non-sequitor alert... but anyway, this seems like a fine example of
"foisting views".

But really it's more like someone coming over to your house, busting down
your door, then renting you a door (then tearing out your plumbing and
polluting your well then renting you water service, etc., etc.).

[And if the intent were to create a "liberated" state that respects the
sovereignty of the people of Iraq, it would seem the rebuilding effort
would start with the U.S. Constitution and a Xerox machine... but
apparently that's not the goal. -- No, the goal is clearly to open markets
and create yet another client state with little or no sovereignty.]

> I do care about the problems with email, that's very true.

Perhaps you should spend more time analyzing the system and understanding
its strengths before you start devising work-arounds for its perceived
weaknesses.

I find that your draconian (and often far-fetched and misinformed)
proposals destroy those things that make email a valuable communication
tool in order to avoid a minor annoyance.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org