----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <uf22g8.k0g.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
a2ab8edc
@REPLY: 1@dont-email.me> 898c7076
@REPLYADDR Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Frank Slootweg
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID:
<uf22g8.k0g.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
@RFC-References: 1@paganini.bofh.team>
<i0scuj-o8j.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au> 1@dont-email.me>
@TZUTC: 0000
@PID: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX)
(CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
Newyana2 <
Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Without a
> cellphone, Google makes it hard to access email.
>
> Anyone putting up with the spying, the 2FA, the ads, etc
[...]
> They`d just tell their friends, with no irony, that they must
> switch to gmail, use webmail and have a cellphone that
> Google can have the number of.
Sigh!
Yes, if you have no cellphone *and* are stupid, Google makes it `hard`
to access email. (Translation: No, you don`t need a cellphone or a
phonenumber and you need 2SV (*not* 2FA) only *once* (per device).)
Why do you always feel the need to use these kinds of bogus arguments?
Can`t you find any real arguments to criticize Google? I would think
there would be plenty of those.
[Rest of rants deleted.]
--- tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX)
(CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
* Origin: NOYB (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441