ThreadBoard ArchivesSite FeaturesActiveworlds SupportHistoric Archives |
Disabling HTML in Outlook Express 5/6 (General Discussion)
Disabling HTML in Outlook Express 5/6 // General DiscussiondabartenderJul 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. wingJul 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 sJul 14, 2001, 1:27am
kmissile583kJul 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-- dabartenderJul 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. wingJul 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 sJul 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 sJul 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] dabartenderJul 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 sJul 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] dabartenderJul 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 sJul 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] m a r c u sJul 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] syliJul 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> syliJul 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] faberJul 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] chucks partyJul 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] ------=_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-- ananasJul 14, 2001, 3:55pm
Short answer :
to keep overall traffic low instead of wasting ressources without need [View Quote] -- "_ | /\ \ / __/ /_ m a r c u sJul 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 sJul 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] wingJul 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] syliJul 14, 2001, 7:43pm
syliJul 14, 2001, 7:45pm
Yes,.....you are asking for courtesy and responsibility - same as is being
asked here. -- ~Syli~ [View Quote] chucks partyJul 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 partyJul 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-- syliJul 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 sJul 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 sJul 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] faberJul 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] ananasJul 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] -- "_ | /\ \ / __/ /_ |