On or about 12-06-03 11:21 PM, Paul Berkowitz wrote: > On 12/6/03 7:53 PM, "Gary Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Safe? Who knows. >> >> Completely ridiculous? Yes. Make a web page and send folks a link. >> >> I have safely and joyously deleted all incoming HTML email for years -- >> thanks to Entourage's rules. (Well, honestly, from mail lists any HTML is >> stripped by rule+script, so I do get a plain Jane version from the few >> weirdos who send HTML mail to mailing lists.) >> >> Never see it, never send it, and never had a problem. :)
> your (not uncommon) quasi-religious attitude concerning HTML. Ah, c'mon, Paul. I think I was far less 'loaded' on the issue than you appear to be. You seem to have it given it great thought. I've given it little. (Your stationery analogy is a case in point. It's not all that taut, but it's interesting debate.) [Two monks approached a broken and narrow footbridge and found an elderly woman afraid to cross. One monk broke a vow of chastity by touching the woman -- he carried her across. After an hour had passed in silence, the second monk said "I am shocked that you broke your vows by carrying that woman." The other monk replied "I put her down on the other side of the bridge. You're still carrying her."] > Do you throw out snail mail letters unread when you don't > approve of the sender's stationery letterheads? It's not really the same thing, but I do see the general point. Of course, I might have chosen to compare it to a home-made paper cut-and-paste card or a self-made stationery. These are expressions of creativity, thoughtfulness, commitment -- the other is an expression of either the opposite of those qualities or lack of awareness of alternatives. But, HTML can be used in the same benevolent ways, and I don't generally disregard it as a valid means of expression. But... > I'm not sure I even believe you. If you're telling the truth, then you've > missed every AppleScript that I and most other scripters here have sent in, > since I always send them in HTML The script that I use is not a 'delete' script, it removes the HTML. I see text-only in the window, in my default message typeface. > It's great to have a mailing > list that allows HTML so I can do this. It is. I agree. It's also great to have an email client that can allow me some input and flexibility in what I see, and how I see it. And each other user her own choices of what the list offers. > The AppleScript formatting (color, > style, font) makes them easier to read too. For some, I'm sure it does. For others, it does not. I have minimal type changes set for myself for Smile, for example, because the color-change is distracting to me. Again, having a Mac, and AS, and a great application (Entourage) allows for as many options as possible. I had a student who became easily distracted and frustrated and scored poorly on some kinds of test material. After a number of discussions including the student, the administrator and myself we discovered that our use of new chalkboards (they were differently colored) was interfering with her vision (poor contrast), which gave her headaches and caused her to lose concentration in class. For me, variations in color and weight in lines and paragraphs of text make it much more difficult for me to read. The contextual clues offered by bold/red and thin/blue are not as useful to my particular brain's way of "reading". The same is true for markup coloring in BBEdit and DreamWeaver. I change the settings to make most text the same. > As you can see I usually use > plain text for other messages, but I don't mind when people send in HTML > messages. As I said to Dan, there are good number of people I love for whom I've set up rules to prevent a blind-eye approach to our communication. (Which I think is quite healthy...enough even to say "Hey, would you mind checking the preference to include a text-only copy of your message?") And I do subscribe to some Internet.com newsletters that are not currently available in a text-only format, but I can rule-around those and the Remove HTML works quite well for all but a few of those, so it's like a text-only version. > I'd find it both puritanical and overly controlling to tell other > people how they should express themselves in print, and foolish to refuse to > read their messages just for that reason. You misread me. Remove HTML does not delete the message. As for the epithets...well, I wouldn't say that describes me at all. My character is quite the opposite on the charges of 'puritanical' and 'controlling'. The debate is on regarding 'foolish'. -- Gary -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
