And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
>> And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
>>>Christopher Jahn wrote:
>>>>And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
>>>>>Presentation is what HTML is all about. How can anyone
>>>>>not want to have a tool that has the potential to augment
>>>>>their attempts at communication?
>>>>>
>>>>>How many web sites do you see in plain-text?
>>>>>
>>>>I have no problems with Websites using HTML.
>>>>
>>>>But I have NEVER seen a newsgroup post that read better
>>>>because it was in HTML. All it did was cause my download
>>>>time to STREEETCH way long.
>
>> But when you go to a groups where DISCUSSION is taking
>> place, it's not necessary, and there are drawbacks.
>
>
> HTML formatting helps DISCUSSION, what is your point? ;)
>
No, it does not. That's my point.
>>>>> Are we talking about bandwidth
>>>>>here? Do we still have people connecting at 300 bps?
>>>>>
>>>>Yes. At least, a suprising number are connecting at 9600.
>>>>Cellphones, beepers, and other "interenet appliances" do
>>>>connect at very low speeds. And many schools and library
>>>>systems (especially in third world locations) connect at
>>>>9600 OR LESS.
>>>
>>>This reminds me of my parents going on and on about all
>>>those starving people in foreign countries when I didn't
>>>eat everything on my plate.
>>
>> There are people starving around the world. And there are
>> people whose access is limited. Why make it even harder
>> for them?
>
>
> I can't believe this; we're saying HTML is the cause of
> world hunger now.
No, no one is saying this.
(remainder of foolish statement snipped)
>
>>>>Because of this, many sysadmins in these areas simply
>>>>block HTML email and newsgroup messages outright.
>>>
>>>I doubt any sysadmin is blocking HTML email. Please. It's
>>>getting deep. There are a few news servers blocking HTML
>>>but... email... are you serious?
>>
>> I am absolutely serious. I know people in Brazil and
>> Argentina whose ISP's do not carry HTML because of the
>> added costs.
>
>
> That sucks, man.
That's reality, kiddo.
>
>
>>>>And even in the rest of the world, many folks pay:
>>>>by the minute for the phone connection
>>>>By the minute for the INTERNET connection
>>>>and by the kilobyte for the download.
>>>>
>>>>Adding a flowered background or six kind of fonts in seven
>>>>colors just doesn't seem to be a compelling argument for
>>>>screwing these people.
>>>
>>>Screw who?
>>
>> The people who have to pay to download HTML code on top of
>> the actual message content. When you post HTML, their
>> connection is longer, which they pay for. It's real money.
>> Cha-ching!
>>
>> Instead of paying, say, $.75 cents to download plaintext
>> email and newsgroups for offline reading, they end up
>> paying $1.25. It adds up, when you figure these costs must
>> be paid every single time they access the internet and
>> Usenet.
>
>
> Screw you. I know what you're up to now. Next you're going
> to be asking for donations to help pay for all the people
> starving because of HTML email being sent to them. It's not
> my damn fault! Bill did it.
YOu're helping him ...and for just a dollar a month...
;-)
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said
but, I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I
meant.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
