--- On Sat 03/30, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 05:13:19PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: > >>Not unlike bitching about HTML, > >It is unlike. One is telling people what words they may use to >express themselves. The other is just making sure that your words >can be read easily (or in some cases, at all).
The principle remains the same. If f--k can be ignored, so can HTML. Since each one was "trivial" to the person being questioned, I'd say the parallels are there. >>and how it inconveniences you, and that anyone that uses HTML in >>his e-mail should change his e-mail because it bugs you. > >Would you care to quote the email where I said that? > Not explicitly, though I felt it was implied by "If it were me, I'd find a better free account that doesn't default to HTML or that lets me change the default so I don't have to click Plain Text for every email." Perhaps that's not what you implied, but your vehement attitude over it certainly spoke volumes. Jim ------------------------------------------------
