Re: Re[4]: gmail (was Re: off topic - OT - another one this time its "email provider")

["RB" <rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

LOL!
Mine are also FREE and I can also throw them away.
Never have and don't know why I would, but I could.
I have had the same personal email for maybe 15 years.
And the same bussiness emails for over 12 years.
 But, I do see your point.  I just don't like spam and advertising as much 
as it seems most do.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jimmy" <jhsnowden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "RB" <rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Omega-List" <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:41 PM
Subject: Re[4]: gmail (was Re: off topic - OT - another one this time its 
"email provider")


> I only know two reasons.  One is FREE.  The second is throwaway.  They
> just quit that email address when they want to.  Many of them have
> another email they don't use many places.
>
> Jimmy
>
> Saturday, October 23, 2004, 12:38:01 PM, you wrote:
>
> R>  The thing I have never understood is why people want to use email like
> R> yahoo, hotmail, gmail etc.  Unless they love spam.  ;)
> R>  I can have up to 10 FREE emails at my ISP.  I only have two!  And use 
> only
> R> one of them. Why would I want or  need any more?  And I deffinately 
> don't
> R> want a spam email.
>
>
> R> ----- Original Message ----- 
> R> From: "Alex Matulich" <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> R> To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> R> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:06 PM
> R> Subject: Re: Re[2]: gmail (was Re: off topic - OT - another one this 
> time
> R> its "email provider")
>
>
> > > >also some readings about gmail: http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/
> > >
> > > Just about everything has a counterpoint these days.  That article
> > > above talks about the *potential* for bad stuff, and where it
> > > actually demonstrates bad stuff, it's related to ads -- to which
> > > I say, who cares?  I don't look at the ads.  I do sometimes look
> > > at the non-ad relevant links that gmail chooses to put next to the
> > > content on my display.
> > >
> > > The article also bases its arguments on shaky ground, for example,
> > > the point about three clicks to trash a message being too onerous,
> > > is ridiculous.  Select the message, move to trash, just like any
> > > other mail client.  The article says it's easier to archive; wrong.
> > > It's about the same, or more because you usually want to label the
> > > message first (analogous to putting it in a folder).
> > >
> > > Nowhere do you have to reveal personal information.  You don't even
> > > have to use your real name.
> > >
> > > -Alex
> --
> Best regards,
> Jimmy                            mailto:jhsnowden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx