Thank you for clarifying who said what. I am working on Mr. Gerber's suggestions. Michael's response started with the word "in which case," which certainly gives me reason to believe that his answer was based on the reasons for my request. I assumed, I hope incorrectly, that you and/or he thought I wanted to forge a false header. Mr. Gerber didn't do any of that - he simply helped me solve the problem and never asked why it was a problem. You asked to know why, and AFTER I was honest with you, Michael told me there was no solution - which is obviously mistaken - or worse, not true - since Mr. Gerber provided one almost immediately. I have never cared for paternalism.
Examining my own motives more fully, I notice that I have been working to understand Moz and how it works several hours a day for almost a month now. This question was actually posted some time ago by another gentlemen - I don't know if it was posted here in this ng or not, but as I recall, no one was able to address his question. Its been bubbling around in my own head ever since. Apparently I just want to learn, and I don't want to wait for the java class starting next January. On or about 5/27/2002 19:35, having not taken the 5th, Christopher Jahn allegedly wrote: > The nefarious top-poster Steve Smith wrote: > >> On or about 5/27/2002 18:47, having not taken the 5th, Bob Dietz >> allegedly wrote: >> >>> Steve Smith wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On or about 5/27/2002 15:16, having not taken the 5th, michael lefevre >>>> allegedly wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Because I'm a control freaq and it just bugs me. No reasonable >>>>>> reason, just personal quirks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> in which case, i'm afraid the exact answer to your original >>>>> question is >>>>> "no, there isn't a pref for setting a different From: address" >>>>> >>>> > >>> My reasons are not relevant; and you should not be making > >>> judgments. I am not a spammer and don't care to be considered >>> > one. > >>> >>> He asked you, why you wished to avoid having a dummy account. >>> (Perhaps he thought he might be able to help with a work around >>> or a different slant if he knew why.) >>> >>> You said, 'no reason.' >>> >>> He replied, no. No solution to the problem as stated. >>> >>> Where do you get that he is making judgments or calling >>> you a spammer??? >>> >>> Bob Dietz >>> >> >> You'll have to back up to my first message to see the context. I >> pretty much generally find it offense to ask "How?", and then, before >> someone will answer the question, they want to answer "How?" with >> "Why?". In doing that they are judging, not responding. I have gotten >> that previous employers on occassion, usually those that don't >> understand that not only is /their/ time money, but mine is as well. >> That's not a consideration here, but it should help place my >> irritation in context. >> > > > First of all, I was the one who asked "why", and not anyone else. > Bob is attributing two statements to one person, which is confusing > the issue. > > When I asked "why?", I was attempting to get an accurate depiction of > the problem; making dummy accounts is an easy and obvious solution, > and I was trying to see if there is some reason to avoid this solution > that I was not aware of. > > YOur initial response to this question was "No reason". > > Michael then responded that there was no adjustment, to which you > suddenly go off on a childish tantrum about judgement and spamming > that makes no sense given that all he did was answer your question. > > Instead of throwing childish and unprovoked tantrums, you should read > Steve GEver's post, in which he discusses the users_prefs you need to > change. > > And while asking "why" may or may not be rationally considered > judgemental, Michael didn't deserve the response you gave, and you owe > him an apology. > > > -- EVEN ONE-TIME SPAM VIOLATES FEDREAL LAW.
