On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, sawyer x wrote:
All you had to do was originally write "as much as I understand people's
desire for encryption, I still believe that 1. SSL is only necessary in
specific websites (example A, example B) and 2. when working with Google we
shouldn't be worrying about encryption there, but rather Google itself."
Instead you opted to butt heads with someone, belittling their whole "SSL
doesn't have large overhead" remark with "who cares? Google!" You could have
made an eloquent respectful comment, saying that while SSL apparently
doesn't cost much, Google is really what bothers you and that you'd rather
have a discussion about that.
I don't think anyone (including myself) would have anything bad to say about
it, and you would have been most likely successful at raising that point of
issue. I've personally moved to DuckDuckGo and considering replacing Gmail.
<G> I guess the little winky smiley face on my original post was lost on
you, eh? I shall have to be far less subtle in the future, but for now
I'll let my e-mails stand on their own. And I won't point out how I
specifically requested that a Google-centric conversation should be held
off-list... Oops. ;-)
Unfortunately, I've most likely committed the same belittling, whether it
was towards you, Shlomi, David, or anyone else here. So, my apologies for
this and I will be clearing my desk of this thread.
I thought that the whole thread was silly, as is the concept that metacpan
would to dictate SSL-only for questionable gains. And I think my
interjection was pretty fair, inoffensive, and good natured. But, maybe
quietly lurking exposes my better side. :-)
--Arthur Corliss
Live Free or Die
