🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris <s3030879@pompeii.mpce.mq.edu.au> wrote:

Bonjour to my namesake. Sadly i must disagree with your comments.

>> >>and HTML only increases
>> >>bandwidth to no good effect.
>>

>I don't believe what I'm reading! A sci-fi buff advocating that we
>should all remain in the dark ages because change makes him
>uncomfortable!!

No, he's a an SF (I hope not a sci-fi) buff who believes in the
appropriate use of technology. Did he say that we should ban HTML? No.
He said that HTML should stay of the Usenet, where it serves only to
increase bandwidth demands without increasing the signal.

>> >People who have no clue that this is a shared resource, but see
>> >it as anything else on their PC, something they can do what
>> >they want with.

>yes, I quite agree - you can't have people doing whatever they want with
>their own PC. It'll be all out anarchy! </sarcasm>

Go and read about the Tragedy of the Commons, and see how your sarcasm
goes there.

[snip]

>> >Those who do own the resources will eventually have to get rather
>> >more agressive..  I hope.

>The easy solution is, I guess that you get yourselves a decent HTML
>reader. Netscape is quite adequate for the job. Reading plain text does
>not make you a more hardcore user than anyone else.

Netscape and Explorer are crap newsreaders. The only reason they do
well is because they are packaged with good Web browsers, not because
they have good features. I see no reason to change over to a dumb
newsreader in order to read HTML, when text is perfectly adequate for
Usenet, takes up less space, and is serviced by superior newsreading
software.

You seem to confuse HTML with all that's good about the Net. I love
HTML, but only on the Web. I like Ferraris, but I wouldn't drive one
across the Simpson Desert.

regards,
Chris

_____________________
Chris Lawson
clawDEATH2SPAMMERS@ozemail.com.au
[remove the capital letters for email address]