Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> i18n@... wrote:
>
> > Still, not everyone is familiar with the term "client-server" regardless
> > of experience. If you are interested in the history of the term, (a fair
> > question). there are better sources then here to find that answer.
>
> Have you really no concept of courtesy? If you know the answer, then
> give it. If you don't, don't lecture.

Don't lecture. That is hilarious coming from you. I gave you the answer
- look it up and find the variety of opinions on the matter. There is no
one answer. Use your own judgment. Don't be stubborn and refuse to use a
search engine just because the suggestion to do so came from me :)

>
> Just as when off-topic questions like possessive markers come up, and I
> know the answer, I provide it and don't lecture.

You did plenty of lecturing when I actually took your advice to look up
your citation, and your conclusions proved to be incomplete at best and
inaccurate at worst. I choose to think incomplete because I am an
optimist :)

Just go look up stuff in google and come to your own conclusion. I am
not about to take time to educate you on the history of computer terms
up to "client server" unless you are paying me.

>
> I found google useful for, for instance, finding pictures of Loos's
> Villa Müller, or where to buy a book-light.
>
> It is not a lexicon.

Of course it is not a lexicon, it is a search engine - although there is
a built in dictionary link on most search result pages.

You seriously think you can't find the answer to "what is an email
client" or the history of the term "client-server" by searching on
google? Or that you are going to get a more complete answer from me or
anyone else then you will find there? Maybe you do, but it would sure
help us bridge the gap of working assumptions about each other for me to
know that about you. If you are brave enough to try it, you will find
that there is more information at your fingertips then you imagine!

I can assure you that I feel google is far more likely to provide a more
comprehensive discussion of the matter then I could off the top of my
head. How about you? Do you think I could do better then google in this
case? That would be flattering but unlikely I think.

>
> Your condescension becomes appalling.

And that would be easier to take if the pot wasn't calling the kettle
black. You know full well you are wasting everyone's time by not even
trying and reporting back on your search engine research efforts.

If you tried it and still don't understand, that is one thing, but to
send message after message insulting me when I have given you superb
advice on how to find the answers to the questions, makes me believe you
have another agenda in mind.

And everyone else believes that too, because I am sure everyone else on
this list goes to google or another search engine first and foremost
many times a day and knows what I am saying is both fair and correct.

BTW, if you find me that appalling you will stop responding, because my
earlier advice to just filter messages from me using your email client
still stands. If you can bear to actually accept that one tip from me,
it would be the last thing you have to hear directly from me on this list.

I know, what a quandary! Whatever will you do? Keep rejecting good solid
information from me and whine about me, or accept my solid advice in
these two matters and become a better netizen for having accepted it?

I won't speculate on the answer, only await the results.

Best,

Barry