"Cevpx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yep, that's it in a nutshell. The main deal is some people don't like
> to be forced to do certain things. Back to the topic of HTML as an
> alternative posting format; I think many people feel it was forced on
> the scene by Microsoft with no regard for established traditions. So,
> even though it might be an advancement, the negative first impression
> has doomed it from the start. To make matters worse, Outlook Express
> has a serious bug with text quoting which makes people look like kooks
> when they reply to Usenet posts. It also makes it very difficult to
> read some of the replies coming from people using Outlook Express.
Most
> of them aren't even aware of this because the formatting bug does its
> dirty work after the user hits send so unless they download and read
> their own posts from the server they won't see the mess Outlook Express
> made of their post. This is not something new, it has been a known
bug
> for several years and if that's not bad enough the OE software folks at
> Microsoft ignore complaints about this. I read somewhere that they
have
> no intention of EVER fixing their program. Ain't that something?
> Probably because Microsoft knows they don't have to fix it.
Well I would think if enough users complained Microsoft *would* fix the
OE Bug. So that leads me to believe based on what I have read elsewhere
that more folks are either using OE or they don't care. Has a study ever
been conducted to nail down just how many use OE as their newsreader of
Choice verses Plaintext only newsreaders. Or is that a st00pid question?
Donna
