Disabling HTML in Outlook Express 5/6 (General Discussion)

Thread

Board Archives

	Bots
	Community
	General Discussion
	Sdk
	Wishlist
	Author Search

Site Features

	Citizens List
	Badges & Achievements
	Events Directory
	News and Articles
	Worlds List
	About Alphaworld
	Search Object Paths

Activeworlds Support

	Download Activeworlds
	Quickstart Tutorial

Historic Archives

	Truespace Archives
	Newsgroup Archives

Disabling HTML in Outlook Express 5/6 (General Discussion)

Disabling HTML in Outlook Express 5/6 // General Discussion

dabartender

Jul 13, 2001, 8:39pm

It's very simple...and since posting in HTML in a non-binary newsgroup goes
against the nearly globally accepted Usenet netiquette guidelines, it's
worth doing so you don't look like a clueless idiot.

Outlook Express:

Tools --> Options
Select the "Send" tab
At the bottom, check off "Plain Text" for "News Sending Format"
*UN*check the box above that says "Reply to messages in the format which
they were sent."
OK/Apply/Whatever.

Now, you'll always post in plain text, and if you reply to an HTML post it
will also revert to plain text.

Save your fellow humans some bandwidth, and follow the accepted rules of the
road...you're not being a rebel by using HTML.
You're just showing your profound ignorance to the entire world.

wing

Jul 13, 2001, 10:46pm

Just a couple quick notes.

[View Quote] This is auto-set with downloaded IE5.0 and earlier and stock Win98 IE. 5.5 and later default to HTML, and if I remember properly,
this option is UNCHANGEABLE under Windows Millenium (I refuse to call it by it's "offical" name) (Damn n00bism)

> *UN*check the box above that says "Reply to messages in the format which
> they were sent."
> OK/Apply/Whatever.

This is never preset by any OS and I also seem to recall this being ghosted under Millenium.

m a r c u s

Jul 14, 2001, 1:27am

I don't see why we can't post in html. Why can't we have a section html?

[View Quote]

kmissile583k

Jul 14, 2001, 1:45am

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C10BF4.D9020AC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Why does everyone hate html format messages?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------

I think that its mostly because of a few reasons.

1. Many people have nothing better to post about
2. Some people like to start useless off-topic discussions
3. People dislike downloading three times larger files to get ten times =
better looking posts
4. People are reluctant to new ideas

And if there are "viruses" in almost every html post, I would recommend =
that anyone who takes too much caution stop visiting any websites.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------

Kmissile583K
Head Builder of AWTeen
kmissile58 at hotmail.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------

[View Quote] ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C10BF4.D9020AC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 size=3D5>Why does everyone hate =
html format=20
messages?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<HR>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I think that its mostly because of a =
few=20
reasons.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1.  Many people have nothing =
better to post=20
about</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2.  Some people like to start =
useless=20
off-topic discussions</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3.  People dislike downloading =
three times=20
larger files to get ten times better looking posts</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>4.  People are reluctant to new=20
ideas</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>And if there are "viruses" in almost =
every html=20
post, I would recommend that anyone who takes too much caution stop =
visiting any=20
websites.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<HR>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Kmissile583K</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Head Builder of AWTeen</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:kmissile58 at hotmail.com">kmissile58 at hotmail.com</A></FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<HR>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"m a r c u s" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:i_have_a_site at yahoo.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>i_have_a_site at yahoo.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote in=20
message </FONT><A href=3D"news:3b4fbc12 at server1.Activeworlds.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:3b4fbc12 at server1.Activeworlds.com</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> I don't see =
why we can't=20
post in html.  Why can't we have a section html?<BR>> <BR>>=20
"dabartender" <</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:admin at hooverae.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>admin at hooverae.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote in=20
message<BR>> </FONT><A =
href=3D"news:3b4f78a6$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com"><FONT=20
face=3DArial =
size=3D2>news:3b4f78a6$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com</FONT></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>...<BR>> > It's very simple...and since =
posting in HTML=20
in a non-binary newsgroup<BR>> goes<BR>> > against the nearly =
globally=20
accepted Usenet netiquette guidelines, it's<BR>> > worth doing so =
you=20
don't look like a clueless idiot.<BR>> ><BR>> > Outlook=20
Express:<BR>> ><BR>> > Tools --> Options<BR>> > =
Select the=20
"Send" tab<BR>> > At the bottom, check off "Plain Text" for  =
"News=20
Sending Format"<BR>> > *UN*check the box above that says "Reply to =

messages in the format which<BR>> > they were sent."<BR>> >=20
OK/Apply/Whatever.<BR>> ><BR>> > Now, you'll always post in =
plain=20
text, and if you reply to an HTML post it<BR>> > will also revert =
to plain=20
text.<BR>> ><BR>> > Save your fellow humans some bandwidth, =
and=20
follow the accepted rules of<BR>> the<BR>> > road...you're not =
being a=20
rebel by using HTML.<BR>> > You're just showing your profound =
ignorance to=20
the entire world.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> =
<BR>>=20
</FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C10BF4.D9020AC0--

dabartender

Jul 14, 2001, 1:48am

[View Quote] Just out of curiosity, can you actually read?

I tried to be nice and clear on this one, but now I might be a little mean.
It was explained in my message - and in plenty of other peoples' messages
before me - that posting in HTML:

1) Goes against the generally accepted etiquette on Usenet. For you
newbies, that's the part of the Internet that serves up newsgroups. It's
been around a lot longer than HTML or the WWW, and is based on plain ASCII
text messaging.
Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, gave you newbies the awful power of the
markup language. Oh, how wrong they were...

2) Is a waste of bandwidth. Imagine if your mommy and daddy took away that
cable or DSL line, and then started charging you by the minute to be
online - on a 14.4 modem. Think that's funny? Well, guess what kiddo, some
people still have to access the Internet in that very fashion. Not everyone
has broadband.
2/3 of the world has never even made a fucking telephone call.
Now, using that scenario, go download a shitload of HTML messages that would
have been 1/4 the size had they been posted in plain text. Wouldn't you be a
little irritated?

3) NOT EVERYONE USES OUTLOOK BLOODY EXPRESS. Most other newsreaders DO NOT
support HTML, and therefore, your message downloads as plain text HTML
source. Not only is the file bigger, but it's a complete pain in the ass to
sift through a bunch of 'font' and 'br' tags to find the actual message.
When you post a message, you want people to read it, right?
Here's another tip for you - many people don't download messages over a
certain size, and/or will skip a message if all they see is HTML source. The
person that could have helped you has now let your message pass right by,
all because you couldn't configure your newsreader properly.

4) Continues to make you look like an idiot after being told these facts
time and time again.

This is my last post on the subject, because you've already made me waste
too much bandwidth.

wing

Jul 14, 2001, 2:57am

*sigh* Suck filter bastard, it's too fucking late to give you a proper asswhippin.

[View Quote]

I think that its mostly because of a few reasons.

1. Many people have nothing better to post about
2. Some people like to start useless off-topic discussions
3. People dislike downloading three times larger files to get ten times better looking posts
4. People are reluctant to new ideas

And if there are "viruses" in almost every html post, I would recommend that anyone who takes too much caution stop visiting any
websites.

Kmissile583K
Head Builder of AWTeen
kmissile58 at hotmail.com

[View Quote]

m a r c u s

Jul 14, 2001, 3:00am

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C10BFD.DF134CE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

LOL
[View Quote] -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----

I think that its mostly because of a few reasons.

1. Many people have nothing better to post about
2. Some people like to start useless off-topic discussions
3. People dislike downloading three times larger files to get ten =
times better looking posts
4. People are reluctant to new ideas

And if there are "viruses" in almost every html post, I would =
recommend that anyone who takes too much caution stop visiting any =
websites.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----

Kmissile583K
Head Builder of AWTeen
kmissile58 at hotmail.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----

[View Quote] ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C10BFD.DF134CE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>LOL</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"kmissile583k" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:Kmissile58 at hotmail.com">Kmissile58 at hotmail.com</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:3b4fc054 at server1.Activeworlds.com">news:3b4fc054 at server1.Act=
iveworlds.com</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 size=3D5>Why does everyone =
hate html format=20
messages?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<HR>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I think that its mostly because of a =
few=20
reasons.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1.  Many people have nothing =
better to post=20
about</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2.  Some people like to start =
useless=20
off-topic discussions</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3.  People dislike downloading =
three times=20
larger files to get ten times better looking posts</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>4.  People are reluctant to new=20
ideas</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>And if there are "viruses" in almost =
every html=20
post, I would recommend that anyone who takes too much caution stop =
visiting=20
any websites.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<HR>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Kmissile583K</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Head Builder of AWTeen</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:kmissile58 at hotmail.com">kmissile58 at hotmail.com</A></FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<HR>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"m a r c u s" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:i_have_a_site at yahoo.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>i_have_a_site at yahoo.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote in=20
message </FONT><A =
href=3D"news:3b4fbc12 at server1.Activeworlds.com"><FONT=20
face=3DArial =
size=3D2>news:3b4fbc12 at server1.Activeworlds.com</FONT></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
I don't see why=20
we can't post in html.  Why can't we have a section html?<BR>> =

<BR>> "dabartender" <</FONT><A =
href=3D"mailto:admin at hooverae.com"><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>admin at hooverae.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>>=20
[View Quote] ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C10BFD.DF134CE0--

m a r c u s

Jul 14, 2001, 3:28am

***MORAL OF THE STORY, REGARDLESS WHAT RULES YOU LAY DOWN, REGARDLESS HOW
MANY PEOPLE YOU GET TO RALLY BEHIND YOU, REGARDLESS WHERE YOU GO ON THE NET,
REGARDLESS WHO YOU ARE TOLD TO DO THINGS BY, PEOPLE WILL DO WHAT THEY WANT
THEMSELVES INITIALLY. YOU CAN'T PROGRAM A HUMAN BEING TO ONLY USE PLAIN
TEXT FROM NOW TO ETERNITY. WISE UP AND DEVISE A SYSTEM YOU PROGRAMMERS SO
PLAIN TEXT ADVOCATES WILL STOP PISSING AND MOANING IN OUR NEWSGROUPS***

"Just out of curiosity, can you actually read?"
Yes, I can read. You also have to have the ability to think about what you
read, not just let 26 symbols fly by your eyes. Let's see if you can.....

"I tried to be nice and clear on this one, but now I might be a little mean.
It was explained in my message - and in plenty of other peoples' messages
before me - that posting in HTML:

1) Goes against the generally accepted etiquette on Usenet."
Who created "the generally accepted etiquette" and why can't we have some
say so from those that want html?

"For you newbies, that's the part of the Internet that serves up newsgroups.
It's
been around a lot longer than HTML or the WWW, and is based on plain ASCII
text messaging."
For you to tell me that means it is an OLD FRIGGIN SYSTEM!!! Time to
re-establish some less primitive "accepted etiquette". It is not hard now
to put in block options that were perhaps harder to implement in the past.
Do you have anything to date to establish why there needs to be a censorship
on html posts?

"Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, gave you newbies the awful power of
the
markup language. Oh, how wrong they were..."
If people want to post in html, it is their own business, not for you to
censor.

"2) Is a waste of bandwidth. Imagine if your mommy and daddy took away that
cable or DSL line, and then started charging you by the minute to be
online - on a 14.4 modem. Think that's funny? Well, guess what kiddo, some
people still have to access the Internet in that very fashion. Not everyone
has broadband."

I would like to see where they spend their money, oh wait that's getting
personal. Stay out of my life as to how I wish to spend my money and stop
censoring you idiot!!!

"2/3 of the world has never even made a fucking telephone call."
And this has to do with the price of tea in China? (Here folks is where a
desperate person tries to present some red herring to better exaggerate a
claim of file size. A newbie wouldn't know the difference and take his
word. I am not a newbie, and I know sound wavs for phone calls are much
bigger than html posts. They can get into the huge whopping MB's)

"Now, using that scenario, go download a shitload of HTML messages that
would
have been 1/4 the size had they been posted in plain text. Wouldn't you be a
little irritated?"
We are not downloading .wavs but html which is not anywhere near the size of
..wav files (an those would be streamed, not downloaded). STOP associating a
phone call with html.

******RECAP - SO FAR dabartender HAS PROVIDED US WITH PRIMITIVE RULES AND
ADDRESSED SOUND AS A MEANS TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT AGAINST HTML POSTS APPEAR
MORE VALID. HTML IS NOT SOUND RELATED******. It stands for "HYPER TEXT" YES
TEXT!!!!, Hyper Text MARKUP LANGUAGE.

ok dabartender, batting 0 for 2, let's see if you don't strikeout.

"3) NOT EVERYONE USES OUTLOOK BLOODY EXPRESS. Most other newsreaders DO NOT
support HTML, and therefore, your message downloads as plain text HTML
source."

What you use for a reader is your choice, if Outlook "Bloody" Express is the
only program (which I doubt) that can only read html code then GET OUTLOOK
"BLOODY" EXPRESS and stop pissing and moaning.

"Not only is the file bigger, but it's a complete pain in the ass to
sift through a bunch of 'font' and 'br' tags to find the actual message.
When you post a message, you want people to read it, right?
Here's another tip for you - many people don't download messages over a
certain size, and/or will skip a message if all they see is HTML source. The
person that could have helped you has now let your message pass right by,
all because you couldn't configure your newsreader properly."

If people don't want to download posts more than a certain limit, that is
their choice. However, their choice to NOT download should not dictate
someone else's limit who might WANT TO see bigger file sized posts.

4) Continues to make you look like an idiot after being told these facts
time and time again.

Well, since you didn't know my response, I am sure idiocy was the only thing
floating around you.

This is my last post on the subject, because you've already made me waste
too much bandwidth.

LOL, well, I am sure you will have something to say here. I'll be awaiting
out next discourse.

[View Quote]

"dabartender" <admin at hooverae.com> wrote in message
news:3b4fc0f3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> "m a r c u s" <i_have_a_site at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b4fbc12 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> | I don't see why we can't post in html. Why can't we have a section
html?
> |
>
> Just out of curiosity, can you actually read?
>
> I tried to be nice and clear on this one, but now I might be a little
mean.
> It was explained in my message - and in plenty of other peoples' messages
> before me - that posting in HTML:
>
> 1) Goes against the generally accepted etiquette on Usenet. For you
> newbies, that's the part of the Internet that serves up newsgroups. It's
> been around a lot longer than HTML or the WWW, and is based on plain ASCII
> text messaging.
> Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, gave you newbies the awful power of
the
> markup language. Oh, how wrong they were...
>
> 2) Is a waste of bandwidth. Imagine if your mommy and daddy took away
that
> cable or DSL line, and then started charging you by the minute to be
> online - on a 14.4 modem. Think that's funny? Well, guess what kiddo,
some
> people still have to access the Internet in that very fashion. Not
everyone
> has broadband.
> 2/3 of the world has never even made a fucking telephone call.
> Now, using that scenario, go download a shitload of HTML messages that
would
> have been 1/4 the size had they been posted in plain text. Wouldn't you be
a
> little irritated?
>
> 3) NOT EVERYONE USES OUTLOOK BLOODY EXPRESS. Most other newsreaders DO
NOT
> support HTML, and therefore, your message downloads as plain text HTML
> source. Not only is the file bigger, but it's a complete pain in the ass
to
> sift through a bunch of 'font' and 'br' tags to find the actual message.
> When you post a message, you want people to read it, right?
> Here's another tip for you - many people don't download messages over a
> certain size, and/or will skip a message if all they see is HTML source.
The
> person that could have helped you has now let your message pass right by,
> all because you couldn't configure your newsreader properly.
>
> 4) Continues to make you look like an idiot after being told these facts
> time and time again.
>
> This is my last post on the subject, because you've already made me waste
> too much bandwidth.
>
>
>

dabartender

Jul 14, 2001, 5:45am

[View Quote] Right...for instance, I've never posted anything remotely helpful or
on-topic in any of the AW newsgroups (or any of the other Usenet groups I
frequent, *all* of which ask that people refrain from posting in HTML) such
as technical advice or a friendly hello to a new citizen. Nope, not me, I
certainly have nothing better to post about than this. I live for this
stuff. Yup, that's me, no other goal in life. Gonna quit my job so I can do
this day and night. Maybe sell the other computers so I don't get distracted
from this one. No sense in trying to be helpful anymore.

>2. Some people like to start useless off-topic discussions

Given the previous discussion, my original post with the advice for OE was
quite on-topic, intended to help people configure their newsreader for
maximum compatibility with the rest of Usenet. Yes, I was sarcastic and a
little condescending, but I was trying to drive home the core point that,
once again, the younger generation seems to be totally missing.

>3. People dislike downloading three times larger files to get ten times
better looking >posts

Why does a newsgroup post have to have 80 different fonts in it? You want to
make an HTML document, put it up on some web space and give us a link. You
people are totally missing the ultimate point - that your HTML messages look
like straight junk to a lot of people. Usenet is, at its core, an
ASCII-based system. Just because Uncle Bill gave us the ability to use HTML
does not mean that it's standard across board. Just as an example, when I
use my plain-text settings to reply to your HTML message, it completely
defeats my ability to quote your post properly, which is why this is
probably going to look screwy when I hit Send. Usenet was not designed to
use HTML.

>4. People are reluctant to new ideas

Au contraire...I'm all for new stuff. I work on aircraft electrical and
avionics systems for a living and love the hell out of new technology. If
you're still actually at any point in your teen years, I've owned computers
longer than you've been alive - and no, I'm not trying to demean you with
that statement - but believe me, I'm not still using the same computer I
started with. I dig new versions of software. I'm looking forward to the
changes in AW 3.2.
Change is good. However, there are times when deviation or change does not
contribute to the good of the whole...in this particular case, the advent of
HTML does not aid a large portion of the Internet community in viewing or
downloading your posts. I wish, if nothing else, someone would admit that
they can at least understand the logic behind this, regardless of whether or
not they agree with it.

>And if there are "viruses" in almost every html post, I would recommend
that anyone >who takes too much caution stop visiting any websites.

I don't recall ever mentioning viruses - much as I never mentioned any kind
of WAV files or streaming audio in my post to marcus, yet he somehow was
able to imagine that I did.
I see that the reading skills are there, but the comprehension level is
still pretty low. So, I'm giving up this fight.
Yes, kids, you win. Go tell all your friends, put up banners, post large
font HTML messages replies with purple backgrounds, whatever.
Enjoy yourselves.

m a r c u s

Jul 14, 2001, 6:01am

Someone call the filibuster police, his whole post (with the exception of
what I will respond to below) could have been summed up with "I disagree",
instead he had to dazzle us with a rough draft like resume of his life in
computers and technology. For someone who is trying to save bytes, you
would think he would take his own advice and put a link up so we could read
his post. Oh, wait a minute, that is a rediculous idea. Ok, scratch the
linking to another source so we can converse. The reason why I came here
was because someone at AW support in email told me AW didn't have message
boards, but newsgroups. Now we are to be steered away from the newsgroups?

If AW just had a message board in the first place, then we wouldn't have to
deal with this issue. Second, I find it interesting that a company whose
sole product deals with 3d objects would expect bland text to be a norm of
any newsgroup using their product. Whether or not it adds something to the
newsgroups is subjective criteria and not a reason to sensor.

[View Quote]

"dabartender" <admin at hooverae.com> wrote in message
news:3b4ff880 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> "kmissile583k" <Kmissile58 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b4fc054 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> |Why does everyone hate html format messages?
> |
>
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> |
> |I think that its mostly because of a few reasons.
> |
>
> Right...for instance, I've never posted anything remotely helpful or
> on-topic in any of the AW newsgroups (or any of the other Usenet groups I
> frequent, *all* of which ask that people refrain from posting in HTML)
such
> as technical advice or a friendly hello to a new citizen. Nope, not me, I
> certainly have nothing better to post about than this. I live for this
> stuff. Yup, that's me, no other goal in life. Gonna quit my job so I can
do
> this day and night. Maybe sell the other computers so I don't get
distracted
> from this one. No sense in trying to be helpful anymore.
>
>
> Given the previous discussion, my original post with the advice for OE was
> quite on-topic, intended to help people configure their newsreader for
> maximum compatibility with the rest of Usenet. Yes, I was sarcastic and a
> little condescending, but I was trying to drive home the core point that,
> once again, the younger generation seems to be totally missing.
>
> better looking >posts
>
> Why does a newsgroup post have to have 80 different fonts in it? You want
to
> make an HTML document, put it up on some web space and give us a link.
You
> people are totally missing the ultimate point - that your HTML messages
look
> like straight junk to a lot of people. Usenet is, at its core, an
> ASCII-based system. Just because Uncle Bill gave us the ability to use
HTML
> does not mean that it's standard across board. Just as an example, when I
> use my plain-text settings to reply to your HTML message, it completely
> defeats my ability to quote your post properly, which is why this is
> probably going to look screwy when I hit Send. Usenet was not designed to
> use HTML.
>
>
> Au contraire...I'm all for new stuff. I work on aircraft electrical and
> avionics systems for a living and love the hell out of new technology. If
> you're still actually at any point in your teen years, I've owned
computers
> longer than you've been alive - and no, I'm not trying to demean you with
> that statement - but believe me, I'm not still using the same computer I
> started with. I dig new versions of software. I'm looking forward to the
> changes in AW 3.2.
> Change is good. However, there are times when deviation or change does not
> contribute to the good of the whole...in this particular case, the advent
of
> HTML does not aid a large portion of the Internet community in viewing or
> downloading your posts. I wish, if nothing else, someone would admit that
> they can at least understand the logic behind this, regardless of whether
or
> not they agree with it.
>
> that anyone >who takes too much caution stop visiting any websites.
>
> I don't recall ever mentioning viruses - much as I never mentioned any
kind
> of WAV files or streaming audio in my post to marcus, yet he somehow was
> able to imagine that I did.
> I see that the reading skills are there, but the comprehension level is
> still pretty low. So, I'm giving up this fight.
> Yes, kids, you win. Go tell all your friends, put up banners, post large
> font HTML messages replies with purple backgrounds, whatever.
> Enjoy yourselves.
>
>

dabartender

Jul 14, 2001, 6:23am

OK, marcus, let's try this again. I hate to have you make a liar out of me,
but I had to respond to the things that - once again - you've completely
missed out on or misinterpreted. I will do my best to be more adult and
civil in this post.

[View Quote] Who created "the generally accepted etiquette" that you hold doors for
people with their arms full, or that you let the pregnant woman on the bus
have your seat, or let the older person ahead of you in a line so they don't
have to stand around for so long? I don't know...but these are things that
most courteous people would do. Why can't we extend that to the Internet,
and follow the courtesy guidelines that have been in use for so long?

| For you to tell me that means it is an OLD FRIGGIN SYSTEM!!! Time to
| re-establish some less primitive "accepted etiquette". It is not hard now
| to put in block options that were perhaps harder to implement in the past.
| Do you have anything to date to establish why there needs to be a
censorship
| on html posts?

It's not censorship. It's common courtesy. Again, I say that just because
it's there, dosen't mean it needs to be used. Microsoft introduced HTML into
a system that was not designed to use it.

| "Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, gave you newbies the awful power of
| the
| markup language. Oh, how wrong they were..."
| If people want to post in html, it is their own business, not for you to
| censor.

Again, I'm not trying to censor anything. I'm actually offended by that
statement, now that you've used it twice against me. I spend months at a
time away from my home and my family protecting your right to shoot your
mouth off like this. After you've spent 6 months floating around on a big
tin can in the middle of the Persian Gulf with 5,000 other people, you
really begin to appreciate how important courtesy and respect both are.

| I would like to see where they spend their money, oh wait that's getting
| personal. Stay out of my life as to how I wish to spend my money and stop
| censoring you idiot!!!

Strike three for you on the censorship bit. It's not a question of how
people spend their money. It's a question of AVAILABILITY. Son, not everyone
lives in the US. Do you know how hard it is to send a piece of e-mail from
Kuwait? I've tried, it's pretty tough. The system simply is not in place all
over the world.

| "2/3 of the world has never even made a fucking telephone call."
| And this has to do with the price of tea in China? (Here folks is where a
| desperate person tries to present some red herring to better exaggerate a
| claim of file size. A newbie wouldn't know the difference and take his
| word. I am not a newbie, and I know sound wavs for phone calls are much
| bigger than html posts. They can get into the huge whopping MB's)

Where did you get anything about a WAV file out of that?
I was *trying* to, once again, convey the fact that the entire world is NOT
wired for 'net access. If a place does not have phone lines, then there's a
really, REALLY good chance that they don't have any kind of broadband access
either.
There are still plenty of places where access is charged per-minute, and
they have extremely limited speed available to them. Ask some folks from the
less populated areas in Europe how their 'net access is.

| "Now, using that scenario, go download a shitload of HTML messages that
| would
| have been 1/4 the size had they been posted in plain text. Wouldn't you be
a
| little irritated?"
| We are not downloading .wavs but html which is not anywhere near the size
of
| .wav files (an those would be streamed, not downloaded). STOP associating
a
| phone call with html.

See above...you're reading things into my post that were not even remotely
implied. I was drawing a parallel between high cost/low speed bandwidth, and
having to download unnecessarily large files.

| ******RECAP - SO FAR dabartender HAS PROVIDED US WITH PRIMITIVE RULES AND
| ADDRESSED SOUND AS A MEANS TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT AGAINST HTML POSTS APPEAR
| MORE VALID. HTML IS NOT SOUND RELATED******. It stands for "HYPER TEXT"
YES
| TEXT!!!!, Hyper Text MARKUP LANGUAGE.
|
| ok dabartender, batting 0 for 2, let's see if you don't strikeout.

I don't know, looks like you've already struck out with the censorship bit,
and you've made a completely irrelevant connection with the whole sound file
issue.

| "3) NOT EVERYONE USES OUTLOOK BLOODY EXPRESS. Most other newsreaders DO
NOT
| support HTML, and therefore, your message downloads as plain text HTML
| source."
|
| What you use for a reader is your choice, if Outlook "Bloody" Express is
the
| only program (which I doubt) that can only read html code then GET OUTLOOK
| "BLOODY" EXPRESS and stop pissing and moaning.

Hey, sparky - guess what, not everyone uses Windows either! And don't even
give me the "Well, AW only runs on Windows so why would anyone be using
anything else" argument, because I can just as easily reboot this machine
into Linux or BeOS and access this newsgroup the exact same way. And guess
what? The newsreaders on those OS's are plain-text only. This whole argument
isn't coming up just as an AW issue...HTML is generally frowned upon
Usenet-wide when it's used in a non-binary newsgroup. It goes back to the
courtesy aspect.

|
| "Not only is the file bigger, but it's a complete pain in the ass to
| sift through a bunch of 'font' and 'br' tags to find the actual message.
| When you post a message, you want people to read it, right?
| Here's another tip for you - many people don't download messages over a
| certain size, and/or will skip a message if all they see is HTML source.
The
| person that could have helped you has now let your message pass right by,
| all because you couldn't configure your newsreader properly."
|
| If people don't want to download posts more than a certain limit, that is
| their choice. However, their choice to NOT download should not dictate
| someone else's limit who might WANT TO see bigger file sized posts.

And I'll say again that, when you post that important question with a 12K
HTML file instead of the 2 or 3K text file that it could have been, and the
one person who could answer it for you goes right by your post...all you'll
end up doing is complaining that noone is responding. And you'll probably do
that in HTML too.

| 4) Continues to make you look like an idiot after being told these facts
| time and time again.
|
| Well, since you didn't know my response, I am sure idiocy was the only
thing
| floating around you.

I'm not even going to try and interpret that.

| This is my last post on the subject, because you've already made me waste
| too much bandwidth.
|
| LOL, well, I am sure you will have something to say here. I'll be
awaiting
| out next discourse.

Well, you did get one thing right.

My response to kmissile indicated that I'm pretty much done arguing about
this, because it's truly pointless. Go ahead and disregard etiquette, rebel
against the man, burn your underwear, or whatever it is that people do these
days...just keep in mind that one day, I may be the very person who holds
the door open for you while you're struggling with an armload of groceries.
A little courtesy goes a long way. I'm going to exit this smoldering flame
war and get on with trying to assist folks where I can.

m a r c u s

Jul 14, 2001, 7:35am

"Why can't we extend that to the Internet, and follow the courtesy
guidelines that have been in use for so long?"
If I hold the door open, and that is couteous it is because the person
wanted to walk through the door. You are opening the door the other way and
throwing out the people who want to use html. Show some courtesy and let us
stay inside where we can use html. You do what you want here and type in
"plain" (uggh) text, let us type in html if we choose. Giving one choice is
courteous, censoring choice is not.

"..just because it's there, dosen't mean it needs to be used."
And just because it is there, doesn't mean it has to be NOT used. Both your
sentence and the logical opposite have nothing to do with this. Your
argument that there is a bigger file size with html posts is better, but yet
we still have yet to see why a system that can create 3d objects and make
them swirl, rotate, flush, etc... is ok on people's connection, but a basic
blue or other color background and text will turn everyone's computer inside
out and make it impossible to hold decent conversations. There just is no
reason besides your want to control and censor what other people prefer to
communicate with.

"Son, not everyone lives in the US. Do you know how hard it is to send a
piece of e-mail from Kuwait?"
Well, Mr. Red Herring if it is that hard to send email, does that mean it is
harder or easier to send newsgroup posts. Assuming you said you were away,
that would indicate to me it is at least just as hard to do. Therefore, if
you can't even post in Newsgroups, why the hell are you bringing this up?
You wouldn't be able to use html or plain text.

"I was *trying* to, once again, convey the fact that the entire world is NOT
wired for 'net access."
This supports my assumption you are bringing up something useless to this
conversation. If you aren't wired for net access, how do you expect to even
post in plain text? USE SOME LOGIC in your next response please, geeze.

"I was drawing a parallel between high cost/low speed bandwidth, and
having to download unnecessarily large files"
Then change your limit to what you can handle, learn to budget.

"HTML is generally frowned upon Usenet-wide when it's used in a non-binary
newsgroup. It goes back to the courtesy aspect."
Again, I ask, why would a 3d company like active worlds care? I mean they
make it so we can do all these things in 3d and that doesn't seem to
irritate you anti-html'ers. This whole courtesy/bandwidth argument is being
used too much here. Have the courtesy to let me choose, If my dog or
relative dies, and I need to tell you this, I'll use plain text and make it
small in file size. You can set file size limit so when I post a bunch of
html(unrelated to major events) and you don't want to see it, then you won't
get it. There, win win situation for both of us and fido will be glad you
are there in support of his death.

"And I'll say again that, when you post that important question with a 12K
HTML file instead of the 2 or 3K text file that it could have been, and the
one person who could answer it for you goes right by your post...all you'll
end up doing is complaining that noone is responding."
(See previous response, if you are going to repeat yourself like a parrot
and USE up bytes I'll show you how to do it right and save them)

[View Quote]

"dabartender" <admin at hooverae.com> wrote in message
news:3b500187 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> OK, marcus, let's try this again. I hate to have you make a liar out of
me,
> but I had to respond to the things that - once again - you've completely
> missed out on or misinterpreted. I will do my best to be more adult and
> civil in this post.
>
> "m a r c u s" <i_have_a_site at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b4fd891 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> | Who created "the generally accepted etiquette" and why can't we have
some
> | say so from those that want html?
>
> Who created "the generally accepted etiquette" that you hold doors for
> people with their arms full, or that you let the pregnant woman on the bus
> have your seat, or let the older person ahead of you in a line so they
don't
> have to stand around for so long? I don't know...but these are things
that
> most courteous people would do. Why can't we extend that to the Internet,
> and follow the courtesy guidelines that have been in use for so long?
>
> | For you to tell me that means it is an OLD FRIGGIN SYSTEM!!! Time to
> | re-establish some less primitive "accepted etiquette". It is not hard
now
> | to put in block options that were perhaps harder to implement in the
past.
> | Do you have anything to date to establish why there needs to be a
> censorship
> | on html posts?
>
> It's not censorship. It's common courtesy. Again, I say that just because
> it's there, dosen't mean it needs to be used. Microsoft introduced HTML
into
> a system that was not designed to use it.
>
> | "Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, gave you newbies the awful power
of
> | the
> | markup language. Oh, how wrong they were..."
> | If people want to post in html, it is their own business, not for you to
> | censor.
>
> Again, I'm not trying to censor anything. I'm actually offended by that
> statement, now that you've used it twice against me. I spend months at a
> time away from my home and my family protecting your right to shoot your
> mouth off like this. After you've spent 6 months floating around on a big
> tin can in the middle of the Persian Gulf with 5,000 other people, you
> really begin to appreciate how important courtesy and respect both are.
>
> | I would like to see where they spend their money, oh wait that's getting
> | personal. Stay out of my life as to how I wish to spend my money and
stop
> | censoring you idiot!!!
>
> Strike three for you on the censorship bit. It's not a question of how
> people spend their money. It's a question of AVAILABILITY. Son, not
everyone
> lives in the US. Do you know how hard it is to send a piece of e-mail from
> Kuwait? I've tried, it's pretty tough. The system simply is not in place
all
> over the world.
>
> | "2/3 of the world has never even made a fucking telephone call."
> | And this has to do with the price of tea in China? (Here folks is where
a
> | desperate person tries to present some red herring to better exaggerate
a
> | claim of file size. A newbie wouldn't know the difference and take his
> | word. I am not a newbie, and I know sound wavs for phone calls are much
> | bigger than html posts. They can get into the huge whopping MB's)
>
> Where did you get anything about a WAV file out of that?
> I was *trying* to, once again, convey the fact that the entire world is
NOT
> wired for 'net access. If a place does not have phone lines, then there's
a
> really, REALLY good chance that they don't have any kind of broadband
access
> either.
> There are still plenty of places where access is charged per-minute, and
> they have extremely limited speed available to them. Ask some folks from
the
> less populated areas in Europe how their 'net access is.
>
> | "Now, using that scenario, go download a shitload of HTML messages that
> | would
> | have been 1/4 the size had they been posted in plain text. Wouldn't you
be
> a
> | little irritated?"
> | We are not downloading .wavs but html which is not anywhere near the
size
> of
> | .wav files (an those would be streamed, not downloaded). STOP
associating
> a
> | phone call with html.
>
> See above...you're reading things into my post that were not even remotely
> implied. I was drawing a parallel between high cost/low speed bandwidth,
and
> having to download unnecessarily large files.
>
> | ******RECAP - SO FAR dabartender HAS PROVIDED US WITH PRIMITIVE RULES
AND
> | ADDRESSED SOUND AS A MEANS TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT AGAINST HTML POSTS
APPEAR
> | MORE VALID. HTML IS NOT SOUND RELATED******. It stands for "HYPER TEXT"
> YES
> | TEXT!!!!, Hyper Text MARKUP LANGUAGE.
> |
> | ok dabartender, batting 0 for 2, let's see if you don't strikeout.
>
> I don't know, looks like you've already struck out with the censorship
bit,
> and you've made a completely irrelevant connection with the whole sound
file
> issue.
>
> | "3) NOT EVERYONE USES OUTLOOK BLOODY EXPRESS. Most other newsreaders DO
> NOT
> | support HTML, and therefore, your message downloads as plain text HTML
> | source."
> |
> | What you use for a reader is your choice, if Outlook "Bloody" Express is
> the
> | only program (which I doubt) that can only read html code then GET
OUTLOOK
> | "BLOODY" EXPRESS and stop pissing and moaning.
>
> Hey, sparky - guess what, not everyone uses Windows either! And don't even
> give me the "Well, AW only runs on Windows so why would anyone be using
> anything else" argument, because I can just as easily reboot this machine
> into Linux or BeOS and access this newsgroup the exact same way. And guess
> what? The newsreaders on those OS's are plain-text only. This whole
argument
> isn't coming up just as an AW issue...HTML is generally frowned upon
> Usenet-wide when it's used in a non-binary newsgroup. It goes back to the
> courtesy aspect.
>
> |
> | "Not only is the file bigger, but it's a complete pain in the ass to
> | sift through a bunch of 'font' and 'br' tags to find the actual message.
> | When you post a message, you want people to read it, right?
> | Here's another tip for you - many people don't download messages over a
> | certain size, and/or will skip a message if all they see is HTML source.
> The
> | person that could have helped you has now let your message pass right
by,
> | all because you couldn't configure your newsreader properly."
> |
> | If people don't want to download posts more than a certain limit, that
is
> | their choice. However, their choice to NOT download should not dictate
> | someone else's limit who might WANT TO see bigger file sized posts.
>
> And I'll say again that, when you post that important question with a 12K
> HTML file instead of the 2 or 3K text file that it could have been, and
the
> one person who could answer it for you goes right by your post...all
you'll
> end up doing is complaining that noone is responding. And you'll probably
do
> that in HTML too.
>
> | 4) Continues to make you look like an idiot after being told these facts
> | time and time again.
> |
> | Well, since you didn't know my response, I am sure idiocy was the only
> thing
> | floating around you.
>
> I'm not even going to try and interpret that.
>
> | This is my last post on the subject, because you've already made me
waste
> | too much bandwidth.
> |
> | LOL, well, I am sure you will have something to say here. I'll be
> awaiting
> | out next discourse.
>
> Well, you did get one thing right.
>
> My response to kmissile indicated that I'm pretty much done arguing about
> this, because it's truly pointless. Go ahead and disregard etiquette,
rebel
> against the man, burn your underwear, or whatever it is that people do
these
> days...just keep in mind that one day, I may be the very person who holds
> the door open for you while you're struggling with an armload of
groceries.
> A little courtesy goes a long way. I'm going to exit this smoldering flame
> war and get on with trying to assist folks where I can.
>
>

m a r c u s

Jul 14, 2001, 7:48am

"After you've spent 6 months floating around on a big
tin can in the middle of the Persian Gulf with 5,000 other people...."

LMAO, well I guess that settles everything, plain text for everyone!!!
Don't you think connecting your military experience and the issue of html
posting a bit of a stretch? I know you are grabbing at straws here, but
please at least make it within the ballpark.

[View Quote]

syli

Jul 14, 2001, 11:29am

Interesting....... a few posts up you ask the question why can't I.....and
when dabartender takes the time to spell it out point for point you are
still not happy. I gathered quite a bit more from his post then simply "I
disagree". He tried to convey the more global aspects of Usenet and how
posting in HTML can be rather selfish and not merely a cosmetic choice. I
don't understand what ppl don't get about this. Try to expand your vision a
little past your nose and look at it more globally.

--
~Syli~

<snip>

syli

Jul 14, 2001, 12:06pm

Did you have a lobotomy? I just can't even fathom where you are coming from
and by your last comment I not only can see that you have no concept of how
to play nice in a large group which was the point, but you are using a
double standard. Didn't you ask for the same consideration with your porn
concerns?
~Syli~
[View Quote]

faber

Jul 14, 2001, 1:42pm

I need an explanation

Usenet is based on an ASCII based protocol, just like email is. But just as in email, this does not force us into ascii display.

HTML-Messaging was introduced by Netscape, not by Microsoft.

But the explanation i need is: Why do the AW newsgroup have to take care of the fact that 2/3rd of the people in the world never
made a phone call ?

I mean, as the technology is progressing, we regularly raised the "lowest" standard, say, in screen resolution, bandwith, colors of
the display, speed of the machine, etc etc.

So why exactly would we exclude one single tiny bid of technology, the format of newsgroup messages, from this ? If your excuse of
people paying by the hour or having slow connection would hold, why do abuse departements not deal with colorful web sites ? Why is
streaming video still allowed on the internet ?

There is a well established standard of usenet and email encoding, its called MIME. It is well accepted, and every little HTML
message is encoded in MIME, along with its plain-text counterpart. That means that all that is asked from news readers is that they
are MIME compliant. They could easily strip out the HTML part then.

Every Newsreader that also reads emails IS MIME - Compliant as that is mandatory for emails these days. So its actually not much to
ask for, and i think the only non mime compliant news reader is free-agent.

That means that there is one single newsreader that has trouble with HTML messages. But, actually, thats not my concern. There are
also lots of people reading usenet on palmtops. Or have vision handicaps. I am really very sorry for those, but we cannot all
behave as if we were slow, blind, deaf, and read the newsgroups on 8 bit machines. There is no point in a backwards compatibility of
that kind.

I wish that people which complain about html would, after all, keep to the real arguments they might have. And the only valid
argument i have seen is that if everyone posted in HTML we would have a pretty mix of colors, fonts etc. But thats what real letters
make out. And thats what the web makes out. And thats somethign the usenet world could learn to adapt to if it were allowed to give
it a try.

Faber

"dabartender" <admin at hooverae.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3b4fc0f3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
[View Quote]

> "m a r c u s" <i_have_a_site at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b4fbc12 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> | I don't see why we can't post in html. Why can't we have a section html?
> |
>
> Just out of curiosity, can you actually read?
>
> I tried to be nice and clear on this one, but now I might be a little mean.
> It was explained in my message - and in plenty of other peoples' messages
> before me - that posting in HTML:
>
> 1) Goes against the generally accepted etiquette on Usenet. For you
> newbies, that's the part of the Internet that serves up newsgroups. It's
> been around a lot longer than HTML or the WWW, and is based on plain ASCII
> text messaging.
> Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, gave you newbies the awful power of the
> markup language. Oh, how wrong they were...
>
> 2) Is a waste of bandwidth. Imagine if your mommy and daddy took away that
> cable or DSL line, and then started charging you by the minute to be
> online - on a 14.4 modem. Think that's funny? Well, guess what kiddo, some
> people still have to access the Internet in that very fashion. Not everyone
> has broadband.
> 2/3 of the world has never even made a fucking telephone call.
> Now, using that scenario, go download a shitload of HTML messages that would
> have been 1/4 the size had they been posted in plain text. Wouldn't you be a
> little irritated?
>
> 3) NOT EVERYONE USES OUTLOOK BLOODY EXPRESS. Most other newsreaders DO NOT
> support HTML, and therefore, your message downloads as plain text HTML
> source. Not only is the file bigger, but it's a complete pain in the ass to
> sift through a bunch of 'font' and 'br' tags to find the actual message.
> When you post a message, you want people to read it, right?
> Here's another tip for you - many people don't download messages over a
> certain size, and/or will skip a message if all they see is HTML source. The
> person that could have helped you has now let your message pass right by,
> all because you couldn't configure your newsreader properly.
>
> 4) Continues to make you look like an idiot after being told these facts
> time and time again.
>
> This is my last post on the subject, because you've already made me waste
> too much bandwidth.
>
>
>

chucks party

Jul 14, 2001, 3:21pm

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C10C4E.97FB5D60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes faber, and you count up the amount of k in this thread alone all =
about 1 sentence in html text, LOL It's absolutely ridiculous, a total =
of 83k disputing a non-issue. The only real and present problem are the =
people complaining about html, not the people that post it. Everytime =
someone posts a sentence in the friggin NG in html we go thru this all =
over again. It would be more acceptable if people made it acceptable and =
stop the post wars over it to begin with. Maybe fuscia just hurts their =
eyes who knows, LOL

[View Quote]

"faber" <Walter at Knupe.de> wrote in message =
news:3b506850 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I need an explanation
>=20
> Usenet is based on an ASCII based protocol, just like email is. But =
just as in email, this does not force us into ascii display.
>=20
> HTML-Messaging was introduced by Netscape, not by Microsoft.
>=20
> But the explanation i need is: Why do the AW newsgroup have to take =
care of the fact that 2/3rd of the people in the world never
> made a phone call ?
>=20
> I mean, as the technology is progressing, we regularly raised the =
"lowest" standard, say, in screen resolution, bandwith, colors of
> the display, speed of the machine, etc etc.
>=20
> So why exactly would we exclude one single tiny bid of technology, the =
format of newsgroup messages, from this ? If your excuse of
> people paying by the hour or having slow connection would hold, why do =
abuse departements not deal with colorful web sites ? Why is
> streaming video still allowed on the internet ?
>=20
> There is a well established standard of usenet and email encoding, its =
called MIME. It is well accepted, and every little HTML
> message is encoded in MIME, along with its plain-text counterpart. =
That means that all that is asked from news readers is that they
> are MIME compliant. They could easily strip out the HTML part then.
>=20
> Every Newsreader that also reads emails IS MIME - Compliant as that is =
mandatory for emails these days. So its actually not much to
> ask for, and i think the only non mime compliant news reader is =
free-agent.
>=20
> That means that there is one single newsreader that has trouble with =
HTML messages. But, actually, thats not my concern. There are
> also lots of people reading usenet on palmtops. Or have vision =
handicaps. I am really very sorry for those, but we cannot all
> behave as if we were slow, blind, deaf, and read the newsgroups on 8 =
bit machines. There is no point in a backwards compatibility of
> that kind.
>=20
> I wish that people which complain about html would, after all, keep to =
the real arguments they might have. And the only valid
> argument i have seen is that if everyone posted in HTML we would have =
a pretty mix of colors, fonts etc. But thats what real letters
> make out. And thats what the web makes out. And thats somethign the =
usenet world could learn to adapt to if it were allowed to give
> it a try.
>=20
> Faber
>=20
>=20
> "dabartender" <admin at hooverae.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag =
news:3b4fc0f3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
section html?
little mean.
messages
It's
ASCII
power of the
away that
kiddo, some
everyone
that would
you be a
DO NOT
HTML
ass to
message.
over a
source. The
right by,
facts
waste
>=20

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C10C4E.97FB5D60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff00ff size=3D2>Yes faber, and you =
count up the=20
amount of k in this thread alone all about 1 sentence in html text, LOL =
It's=20
absolutely ridiculous, a total of 83k disputing a =
non-issue. The only=20
real and present problem are the people complaining about html, not the =
people=20
that post it. Everytime someone posts a sentence in the friggin NG in =
html we go=20
thru this all over again. It would be more acceptable if people made it=20
acceptable and stop the post wars over it to begin with. Maybe fuscia =
just hurts=20
their eyes who knows, LOL</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#ff00ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"faber" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:Walter at Knupe.de"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Walter at Knupe.de</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
[View Quote] newsgroup have to take care of the fact that 2/3rd of the people in the =
world=20
never<BR>> made a phone call ?<BR>> <BR>> I mean, as the =
technology is=20
progressing, we regularly raised the "lowest" standard, say, in screen=20
resolution, bandwith, colors of<BR>> the display, speed of the =
machine, etc=20
etc.<BR>> <BR>> So why exactly would we exclude one single tiny =
bid of=20
technology, the format of newsgroup messages, from this ? If your excuse =

of<BR>> people paying by the hour or having slow connection would =
hold, why=20
do abuse departements not deal with colorful web sites ? Why is<BR>>=20
streaming video still allowed on the internet ?<BR>> <BR>> There =
is a well=20
established standard of usenet and email encoding, its called MIME. It =
is well=20
accepted, and every little HTML<BR>> message is encoded in MIME, =
along with=20
its plain-text counterpart. That means that all that is asked from news =
readers=20
is that they<BR>> are MIME compliant. They could easily strip out the =
HTML=20
part then.<BR>> <BR>> Every Newsreader that also reads emails IS =
MIME -=20
Compliant as that is mandatory for emails these days. So its actually =
not much=20
to<BR>> ask for, and i think the only non mime compliant news reader =
is=20
free-agent.<BR>> <BR>> That means that there is one single =
newsreader that=20
has trouble with HTML messages. But, actually, thats not my concern. =
There=20
are<BR>> also lots of people reading usenet on palmtops. Or have =
vision=20
handicaps.  I am really very sorry for those, but we cannot =
all<BR>>=20
behave as if we were slow, blind, deaf, and read the newsgroups on 8 bit =

machines. There is no point in a backwards compatibility of<BR>> that =

kind.<BR>> <BR>> I wish that people which complain about html =
would, after=20
all, keep to the real arguments they might have. And the only =
valid<BR>>=20
argument i have seen is that if everyone posted in HTML we would have a =
pretty=20
mix of colors, fonts etc. But thats what real letters<BR>> make out. =
And=20
thats what the web makes out. And thats somethign the usenet world could =
learn=20
to adapt to if it were allowed to give<BR>> it a try.<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
Faber<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> "dabartender" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:admin at hooverae.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>admin at hooverae.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
schrieb im=20
Newsbeitrag </FONT><A =
href=3D"news:3b4fc0f3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com"><FONT=20
face=3DArial =
size=3D2>news:3b4fc0f3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com</FONT></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>...<BR>> ><BR>> > "m a r c u s" =
<</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:i_have_a_site at yahoo.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>i_have_a_site at yahoo.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote in=20
message<BR>> > </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:3b4fbc12 at server1.Activeworlds.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:3b4fbc12 at server1.Activeworlds.com</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...<BR>> > | I don't see why we can't post in html.  =
Why can't=20
we have a section html?<BR>> > |<BR>> ><BR>> > Just =
out of=20
curiosity, can you actually read?<BR>> ><BR>> > I tried to =
be nice=20
and clear on this one, but now I might be a little mean.<BR>> > It =
was=20
explained in my message - and in plenty of other peoples' =
messages<BR>> >=20
before me - that posting in HTML:<BR>> ><BR>> > 1) Goes =
against the=20
generally accepted etiquette on Usenet.  For you<BR>> > =
newbies,=20
that's the part of the Internet that serves up newsgroups.  =
It's<BR>>=20
> been around a lot longer than HTML or the WWW, and is based on =
plain=20
ASCII<BR>> > text messaging.<BR>> > Microsoft, in their =
infinite=20
wisdom, gave you newbies the awful power of the<BR>> > markup=20
language.  Oh, how wrong they were...<BR>> ><BR>> > 2) =
Is a=20
waste of bandwidth.  Imagine if your mommy and daddy took away =
that<BR>>=20
> cable or DSL line, and then started charging you by the minute to=20
be<BR>> > online - on a 14.4 modem.  Think that's funny? =
Well, guess=20
what kiddo, some<BR>> > people still have to access the Internet =
in that=20
very fashion. Not everyone<BR>> > has broadband.<BR>> > 2/3 =
of the=20
world has never even made a fucking telephone call.<BR>> > Now, =
using that=20
scenario, go download a shitload of HTML messages that would<BR>> =
> have=20
been 1/4 the size had they been posted in plain text. Wouldn't you be =
a<BR>>=20
> little irritated?<BR>> ><BR>> > 3) NOT EVERYONE USES =
OUTLOOK=20
BLOODY EXPRESS.  Most other newsreaders DO NOT<BR>> > support =
HTML,=20
and therefore, your message downloads as plain text HTML<BR>> > =
source.=20
Not only is the file bigger, but it's a complete pain in the ass =
to<BR>> >=20
sift through a bunch of 'font' and 'br' tags to find the actual =
message.<BR>>=20
> When you post a message, you want people to read it, right?<BR>> =
>=20
Here's another tip for you - many people don't download messages over =
a<BR>>=20
> certain size, and/or will skip a message if all they see is HTML =
source.=20
The<BR>> > person that could have helped you has now let your =
message pass=20
right by,<BR>> > all because you couldn't configure your =
newsreader=20
properly.<BR>> ><BR>> > 4) Continues to make you look like =
an idiot=20
after being told these facts<BR>> > time and time again.<BR>>=20
><BR>> > This is my last post on the subject, because you've =
already=20
made me waste<BR>> > too much bandwidth.<BR>> ><BR>> =
><BR>>=20
><BR>> </FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C10C4E.97FB5D60--

ananas

Jul 14, 2001, 3:55pm

Short answer :

to keep overall traffic low instead of wasting ressources
without need

[View Quote] --
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_

m a r c u s

Jul 14, 2001, 5:07pm

I ask you to do the same and just accept it, I don't ask you to post in html
because I prefer that. I am willing to accept you for you and how you want
to present your message. Please have the common courtesy to accept that
back. I already told you how it could be used in both html and plain text.

Those that are dissatisfied with anything seem to be the anti html crowd. I
don't see html posters asking people to stop posting in plain text.

[View Quote]

m a r c u s

Jul 14, 2001, 5:18pm

Putting porn up where children can go is a BIG PROBLEM in my book, choosing
to use html that a 10-17 year old can use is something much different.

It is not a double standard, and I will tell you why. I don't care if an
adult opens up a private world designated for the purposes of displaying
adult material in just a part or the whole area of the world. I also don't
care if there is an html section we can post in. I would respect certain
areas in a newsgroup if html was allowed in one, just like I would expect an
adult to only put adult material where the adult section is out of the reach
of children.

You ask me why I can't get what was previously typed, why can't you get this
difference down? I was addressing the openness of the adult material where
children could access, not the fact it existed on AW's server. I am in full
support of adults who want to open a private world with adult material for
the purposes of entertaining adults, NOT children.

And that syli is called courtesy and responsibility.

[View Quote]

wing

Jul 14, 2001, 7:03pm

Also... Show me a Mac or Linux based newsreader that does HTML, and in the case of Macs, doesn't have the word Microsoft on it (They
seem to at least have the sense to dislike M$)
[View Quote]

"dabartender" <admin at hooverae.com> wrote in message news:3b4ff880 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
> "kmissile583k" <Kmissile58 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b4fc054 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> |Why does everyone hate html format messages?
> |
> |---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> |
> |I think that its mostly because of a few reasons.
> |
>
> Right...for instance, I've never posted anything remotely helpful or
> on-topic in any of the AW newsgroups (or any of the other Usenet groups I
> frequent, *all* of which ask that people refrain from posting in HTML) such
> as technical advice or a friendly hello to a new citizen. Nope, not me, I
> certainly have nothing better to post about than this. I live for this
> stuff. Yup, that's me, no other goal in life. Gonna quit my job so I can do
> this day and night. Maybe sell the other computers so I don't get distracted
> from this one. No sense in trying to be helpful anymore.
>
>
> Given the previous discussion, my original post with the advice for OE was
> quite on-topic, intended to help people configure their newsreader for
> maximum compatibility with the rest of Usenet. Yes, I was sarcastic and a
> little condescending, but I was trying to drive home the core point that,
> once again, the younger generation seems to be totally missing.
>
> better looking >posts
>
> Why does a newsgroup post have to have 80 different fonts in it? You want to
> make an HTML document, put it up on some web space and give us a link. You
> people are totally missing the ultimate point - that your HTML messages look
> like straight junk to a lot of people. Usenet is, at its core, an
> ASCII-based system. Just because Uncle Bill gave us the ability to use HTML
> does not mean that it's standard across board. Just as an example, when I
> use my plain-text settings to reply to your HTML message, it completely
> defeats my ability to quote your post properly, which is why this is
> probably going to look screwy when I hit Send. Usenet was not designed to
> use HTML.
>
>
> Au contraire...I'm all for new stuff. I work on aircraft electrical and
> avionics systems for a living and love the hell out of new technology. If
> you're still actually at any point in your teen years, I've owned computers
> longer than you've been alive - and no, I'm not trying to demean you with
> that statement - but believe me, I'm not still using the same computer I
> started with. I dig new versions of software. I'm looking forward to the
> changes in AW 3.2.
> Change is good. However, there are times when deviation or change does not
> contribute to the good of the whole...in this particular case, the advent of
> HTML does not aid a large portion of the Internet community in viewing or
> downloading your posts. I wish, if nothing else, someone would admit that
> they can at least understand the logic behind this, regardless of whether or
> not they agree with it.
>
> that anyone >who takes too much caution stop visiting any websites.
>
> I don't recall ever mentioning viruses - much as I never mentioned any kind
> of WAV files or streaming audio in my post to marcus, yet he somehow was
> able to imagine that I did.
> I see that the reading skills are there, but the comprehension level is
> still pretty low. So, I'm giving up this fight.
> Yes, kids, you win. Go tell all your friends, put up banners, post large
> font HTML messages replies with purple backgrounds, whatever.
> Enjoy yourselves.
>
>

syli

Jul 14, 2001, 7:43pm

Because plain text doesnt cause a $$ hardship to anyone....

--
~Syli~
[View Quote]

syli

Jul 14, 2001, 7:45pm

Yes,.....you are asking for courtesy and responsibility - same as is being
asked here.

--
~Syli~
[View Quote]

chucks party

Jul 14, 2001, 8:12pm

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C10C77.3834A3E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No, but argueing about 1 freaking html post does.

[View Quote]
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C10C77.3834A3E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 size=3D6>No, but argueing about =
1 freaking=20
html post does.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"syli" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:rflorez at mindspring.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>rflorez at mindspring.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote in=20
message </FONT><A href=3D"news:3b50bceb at server1.Activeworlds.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:3b50bceb at server1.Activeworlds.com</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> Because plain =
text doesnt=20
cause a $$ hardship to anyone....<BR>> <BR>> --<BR>>=20
~Syli~<BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C10C77.3834A3E0--

chucks party

Jul 14, 2001, 8:18pm

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C10C77.DFFC9B00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No, this is the real problem, people that reply that don't edit their =
post so its not 12 freaking K big to add less than a sentence to =
respond.=20

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C10C77.DFFC9B00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 size=3D6>No, this is the =
real problem,=20
people that reply that don't edit their post so its not 12 freaking =
K big=20
to add less than a sentence to respond. </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C10C77.DFFC9B00--

syli

Jul 14, 2001, 11:10pm

Yes, i goofed - but i CAN admit it. Check back - and you will see you did
the same on several posts.

--
~Syli~
[View Quote]

m a r c u s

Jul 15, 2001, 3:23am

Old macs I used displayed html fine, but if you were even 1% right that
would give more reason to NOT buy a mac.

[View Quote]

m a r c u s

Jul 15, 2001, 4:38am

We already covered this, read up:

["I was drawing a parallel between high cost/low speed bandwidth, and
having to download unnecessarily large files"
Then change your limit to what you can handle, learn to budget.]

[View Quote]

faber

Jul 15, 2001, 11:56am

Do you know that 50% of all emails send out these days are spam messages ? And they are usually not even html.

Do you fight those ?

Lets keep an realistic view on things here, you are NOT fighting against HTML because of bandwidth problems. Right now we have,
what, 10% in html here ?5% ? And, say, below 100 posts per day ? And HTML puts what, less than 5k on a posting ? So you are
fighting for 5 * 5 = 25K traffic relief per day ?

Faber

"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3B508696.E722F76A at oct31.de...
> Short answer :
>
> to keep overall traffic low instead of wasting ressources
> without need
>
[View Quote]

ananas

Jul 15, 2001, 12:27pm

Yes, I do fight spam, or at least try to, by

- sending abuse reports
- having an email address list on my web page where the
bots looking for adresses to spam find victims amongst
their own customers and a lot of not existing junk
material.

Your calculation is wrong in 2 points :

- the relation might be correct for plain html, no
"stationary" and no other picture elements.
But once it's open for HTML this will come too.
makes 25K for a 2K message, especially as this
is transfered uuencoded, 1/3 more size.

- just for me, I cannot read the news during the week,
that makes 500 posts. Although I have a 64kbit line
my connection to the AW NG server is really slow
sometimes, even goes down to about acustic coupler
speed. DSL would not help when that is the case.

And one more thing is always forgotten in the arguments,
having HTML vs. quoting is not an argument, because HTML
will not replace quoting but add to it.

Next will be JS or VBScript? What about HTML compatibility
issues? Does everyone check his mail with validator.w3c.org
before he sends?
I hope you know about all the security holes especially in
M$ products.

[View Quote] --
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_

Awportals.com · ProLibraries Live · Twitter · LinkedIn