Lightning extension for TBird 3.1 at RC
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: [UPD] TBird 3.1 available
Next: TBird 3.1 available
From: za kAT on 26 Jun 2010 12:13 On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > As you know, mail servers host the mail - all are webmail. Clients reside > on PC's (et al) and download the email from the webmail server for > reading. Some Webmail allows access to the server and enables reading > without download or PC based software. Gmail does both, so your orange > and grapefruit argument may have some validity, but not in the way you > intended, eh. That's complete gibberish.... -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: Craig on 26 Jun 2010 13:07 On 06/26/2010 09:13 AM, za kAT wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > >> As you know, mail servers host the mail - all are webmail. Clients >> reside on PC's (et al) and download the email from the webmail >> server for reading. Some Webmail allows access to the server and >> enables reading without download or PC based software. Gmail does >> both, so your orange and grapefruit argument may have some >> validity, but not in the way you intended, eh. > > That's complete gibberish.... But interesting. This is one of the better examples of prose posted under the "Bear Bottoms" moniker that, to me, feels more like the result of an algorithm than something composed by a human. There's an internal consistency to its incoherence, a kind of absurdum ad infinitum. It's as if some unhinged, malevolent programmer developed a Yogi Berra algorithm. Compare BB's quote above to the Berrism below: > I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat, and > if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault > that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself? Same amusing internal illogic; same pompous self-regard. Just add malevolence and automate the whole thing. Odd, no? -- -Craig
From: za kAT on 26 Jun 2010 15:05 On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:07:35 -0700, Craig wrote: > On 06/26/2010 09:13 AM, za kAT wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> As you know, mail servers host the mail - all are webmail. Clients >>> reside on PC's (et al) and download the email from the webmail >>> server for reading. Some Webmail allows access to the server and >>> enables reading without download or PC based software. Gmail does >>> both, so your orange and grapefruit argument may have some >>> validity, but not in the way you intended, eh. >> >> That's complete gibberish.... > > But interesting. > > This is one of the better examples of prose posted under the "Bear > Bottoms" moniker that, to me, feels more like the result of an algorithm > than something composed by a human. > > There's an internal consistency to its incoherence, a kind of absurdum > ad infinitum. It's as if some unhinged, malevolent programmer developed > a Yogi Berra algorithm. Compare BB's quote above to the Berrism below: > >> I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat, and >> if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault >> that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself? > > Same amusing internal illogic; same pompous self-regard. Just add > malevolence and automate the whole thing. Odd, no? You've hinted at this before. He does seem to recycle sentences. Perhaps, he has a custom waffle generator, but you're right there's a kind of logic behind his illogic. It's not just cut and paste. Perhaps we are unwitting pawns in a spooky experiment... -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: poutnik on 27 Jun 2010 01:58 In article <Xns9DA34E095E725bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com says... > > > As you know, mail servers host the mail - all are webmail. Some servers are not webmail. -- Poutnik The best depends on how the best is defined.
From: poutnik on 27 Jun 2010 02:01
In article <Xns9DA34F0D5364Fbearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net>, bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com says... > > > > > He obviuosly thinks personal usage. > > But I have heard Google does not like > > people to have multiple accounts. > > > > Hearsay, and it is wrong. At least you are batting 1000. I have multiple > Gmail accounts and some of them are paid accounts for use with Google > services. I have actually been rewarded by Gmail, such as when Google > Voice was offered to a chosen few. I got an invitation without asking and > other invitations. > > Even before I set up some accounts with paid services, I had several > gmail accounts. Google never blinked. Show me your hearsay...cough up > some proof. I was not stating it, so no proof is needed. -- Poutnik The best depends on how the best is defined. |