[PLUG] Webmail server suggestions

Michael Robinson plug_0 at robinson-west.com
Fri May 7 12:02:02 UTC 2004


Jeme A Brelin wrote:

>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".
>
Maybe it's close minded to reject ideas that require faith.
 The scientific method isn't perfect, it works best
when it isn't taken outside of it's own sphere of relevance.
But go ahead, pursue a purely secular world view.
I'd say that one's life will be richer if they don't
create religious tension where none exists, but
don't believe me ;-)

>>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.
>
Religios faith is not a substitute for reason as much as reason is not a 
substitute for faith.
They can and do coexist, in harmony, in many people, of many faiths.

>>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.
>
Anti religious spouting is way out of line.  It has no relevance to 
setting up
a webmail site.  You seem more interested in foisting certain views on
others who don't want them than sticking to the topics of this list.  That
would require social discipline, you clearly reject this though.

>>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 thecultural fabric to prevent full-scale Inquisition and the like.
>
Indeed the Constitution of the United States gurantees freedom of religious
expression.  Strange that this would be interpreted to mean freedom from.
You wouldn't criticize someone for being a certain way because
the root reason might be religious, would you?  You're grossly
misinformed about history, I would not rely on the idea of the inquisition
being such a terrible thing.  Even if it did bother me so much, it doesn't
as a complaint support an outright rejection of individual and collective
freedom of religious expression alone.

>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.).
>  
>
It's more like, Clinton did nothing and September 11th happened.  Bush 
took an aggressive
attitude with a military Clinton had reduced in size and isn't being 
supported.  Never mind
that Bush even if we should send more troops doesn't want to.  It is 
harsh to be using
so many reservists when you don't have the regulars.  Clinton did worse 
than nothing, he fire
bombed muslim countries around Christmas which could accomplish nothing 
and probably
only inflamed the region.  An impotent show of force hitting only the 
wrong people is the
worst use of force that there is.

>[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 think you're assuming that Iraqi's like the U.S. Constitution at this 
point, they're
not Westerners who seperate church and state in the cultural way we do. 
 Indeed,
fundamentalist Islam holds that it's of religious importance who governs 
and what
religion he/she supports.  There are non fundamentalist muslims, but so 
far one must
question the potential for any of them to influence the muslim street 
adequately.  
Supposedly noone liked Saddham, isn't it interesting that no muslim country
would support our going in to Iraq on the premise of removing someone they
supposedly don't like.  It religiously offends some muslims that non 
muslims
are in control of a muslim country.  Never mind that muslims religiously,
fundamentalists types, want to subjugate the whole world under a muslim
super state.  This is the type of muslim Bin Laden, and we know he is so 
driven
that he will kill even fellowmuslims if they try to stand in his way, 
is.  Islam has
been at war with the west since it came into existence.  There was a time in
Europe when the pope had to pay 25000 silver pieces a year to keep Vatican
city free of Islamic rule.  There needs to be a foundational shift in 
Islamic
thinking, until that happens there will be times where force is justified.  
Hopefully, the world will globalize without becoming an islamic super
state and the spread of posterity will make it harder to recruit extremists.

>>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.
>
Hmm, I see one of it's weaknesses right here!

>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.
>  
>
It is worthwhile to talk to Brelin.  Oh I learn so much about Linux and
network architecture in general from him.  Nah, I don't need to fix 
anything.
Geez, what was I thinking!





More information about the PLUG mailing list