There is no way in hell I could be accidentally misquoted and misunderstood, three out of three 'arguments' in single post. Yeah, let's pretend that I have no idea what I am talking about -- much easier than acknowledging any kind of flaw in actual foundation of the architecture.
I can't be any more clear than what I already said. If you decide to take an easy road and kill the messenger, no problem with that. I don't have any intention to continue with this discussion indefinitely, especially if it turns out to ad hominem. History teaches that killing the messenger does not make problem go away. You see it or not, decide to ignore it or not... fine by me.
You also might want to look up what an ad hominem is. Hint: Suggesting that someone lacks knowledge about what they are talking about is not. And in particular, it is not logically fallacious to deduce that if someone lacks knowledge that therefore they might be providing unreliable information.
And while you are at it, maybe also look up what "killing the messenger" means and how it is used.
But you are right that the much more fundamental problems that are actually there won't go away if you keep ignoring them.
By the way, the one who claimed that you were not really an expert on this was you, a few posts ago.
Now, if you have any actual specific problems with email that you think a new system would be better able to solve, feel free to explain it, then I can explain more concretely what the problem with your proposal is or how you are missing the actual underlying problem - or possibly accept that you indeed do have a valid point, though I wouldn't be too optimistic about that at the moment.
I can't be any more clear than what I already said. If you decide to take an easy road and kill the messenger, no problem with that. I don't have any intention to continue with this discussion indefinitely, especially if it turns out to ad hominem. History teaches that killing the messenger does not make problem go away. You see it or not, decide to ignore it or not... fine by me.