And it came to pass that Mark wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> �I am absolutely serious. I know people in Brazil and
> �Argentina whose ISP's do not carry HTML because of the
> �added costs.
>
> It surprises me that some people concerned about the extra
> size associated with HTML, are requoting the *entire*
> message for the sake of a few tacked on lines at the bottom.
> :)
>
> But, . . while I can see and understand the argument for
> text only posts, I'm thinking this is a lot like B&W vs.
> color television. Sure, with B&W the *content* is still
> there, but things are generally more enjoyable when watched
> in color.
But television is a visual medium. And the broadcast signal is
free.
It would be more accurate to compare Usenet and newsgroups to
newspapers, books, and magazines.
Do you read the NY Times? What if you had a choice between
plaintext NYT for a nickel, or fifty cents for the regular,
graphics enhanced edition? Sure, you might choose the bigger
version. But posting in HTML forces the OTHER guy to shell out
another 45 cents.
Mark, if you ever wonder why americans are becoming more and
more despised the world over, you have only to read you last
post. No consideration of others, just pure selfishness.
"So let'em eat cake!"
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
If it weren't for lawyers, I think we could have invented a
universal symbolic representation of reality.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
