Hmm - I can’t tell if we are in raging agreement or disagreement 
The “get over it” that I am referring to is asking people who play correspondence to “let go” of the idea that correspondence games will be finished quickly, unless they agree with their opponent about that in advance.
I’m not seeing how this is a disrespect of the opponent’s time? The opponent spends the same amount of time on the game irrespective of how long the game takes, don’t they?
So perhaps what it is not respecting is the opponent’s desire for rapid fulfilment from each game that they play?
The challenge we have is that this desire is not based on a reasonable expectation.
If I start a game with 3d + 3d/move then I should expect that this game will take about 150-250 x 3days plus 2-3 weeks of vacation per year. That’s just the maths of how it works… and the vacation period is insignificant compared to the number of moves times the time per move.
Yet somehow folk playing correspondence seem to expect these games to finish in under a year. Why?
This is the same as someone signing up for a 10min + 1min/turn game and saying hurry up to their opponent when their opponent thinks for more than a few seconds, isn’t it?
(This does happen)
Surely the right answer is to select time settings that give you the effect that you want.
Maybe we should have a “no vacation” option that players can agree to - I can see some sense in that, so that it can be done formally rather than informally? It’d be interesting to see who’d agree to a year long game with no vacation…
edit: and if we did do that, wouldn’t we just have more “serial timeouts” when the people who thought that they didn’t need vacation find out that they really do?