🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SCOTT.92Apr11024138@nic.gac.edu> scott@nic.gac.edu (Scott Hess)
writes:
>
>You totally missed his point.  The point was that most people simply
>don't read RTF files, and don't really care. 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call your bluff, here.  Where you you draw the
authority to speak for "most" people.  What survey is it based on?

>
>
>I don't know how many people remember when RTF posting first came to
>NewsGrazer, but in the week or two after we had a number of very,
>_very_ large posts.  I know because I had to abort a couple sessions
>where my machine attempted to download many megabytes of
>information over a 2400 baud line calling long distance.  All for a
>couple stupid color pictures.  I can tell you I enjoyed that.  I
>already was paying high enough phone bills for just the basic fluff
>on comp.sys.next* without having to also pay for someone else to
>have loads of fun posting huge binaries.
>

I also grow tired of hearing complaints about tranfer rates and long distance
costs.  You choose the method you wanted to use to connect, in this case, you
picked a method that has a high per byte cost, and want the rest of us to make
your decision the right one.  I pay $8000+ a year for my connection, and don't
really want my throughput throttled to such a LCD level.  I believe rtf has
it's place (NOT in a seperate forum, that defeats it's purpose) just as much as
lower/upper case, punctuation, etc. enhance postings.  

Thank GOD we at least had moved on to ascii by the time usenet got going,
otherwise, we'd still be stuck at baudot, and listening to grumbling about
those upstarts wasting our paper tape using lowercase! ;-)

>scott hess <scott@gac.edu>   <A GUI is to a command-line as a TV is to a book>
>12901 Upton Avenue South, #326  Burnsville, MN  55337  (612) 895-1208 Anytime!
>

This is not a defense of this particular RTF posting, I haven't even seen it,
but I think the 'right' to reasonable RTF postings should not be denied, any
more than the 'right' to post the multi-line advertising .signatures should
be denied.  I'll take anyone's odd that the sumtotal of redundant .signatures
FAR exceeds the sum total of RTF postings, and hence cost you pay-per-byters
much more.

My opinions, only.  I speak for no one but me.

Jim De Arras