Posted by CQ on 11/16/25 11:36

In article <QMRuf.99235$J11.2101183@wagner.videotron.net>,
napsterneorenegade@hotmail.com says...

> Two reasons that I can recall right now:

Smileys, you forgot smileys. And avatars, you gotta have them. <WG>

> - To add emphasis to what I'm writing.
> - To maintain formatting in quotes from web pages.

Emphasis is easily added, you really can't be arguing from a point of
simply being *too lazy* to add an asterisk or two once in a while, can
you?

What formatting do you need to maintain from a web page in order to make
the quote apply in a verbal (text) message? Seems to me you are once
again arguing from a point of simply being lazy. It takes but a few
seconds to strip out formatting that is making a mess of a simple cut &
paste quote, is that what you are finding too hard to do?

The point that seems to be being missed here is simply this:

The most compelling reason that usenet (and wise email) is done with
plain text is because a malicious person can use simple html commands to
cause problems with another's computer. When a program renders the html
commands it sees, if those commands are either faulty or just plain
malicious, it can cause problems ranging from lock-ups to crashes to even
worse (in a paranoid worst case scenario the "attacker" can gain control
of the "victims" computer). The use of plain text on usenet (and in wise
use of email) simply eliminates this problem and/or threat completely.
Many people (myself included) feel that the small price to pay of having
to use an occasional asterisk or underscore, _if needed_, are well worth
the effort. Simply not using html eliminates the very real possibility
of html being used sloppily, badly or maliciously.

A web browser is designed with all manner of security measures that are
added to, refined and upgraded often. A news reader, which is designed to
communicate in a plain text medium, simply is not and should not have to
be. This means that your formatted messages are being discarded by some,
(which just makes posting them wasteful), rendered by some, (which
requires implicit trust in you by those who don't know you), and are
being seen as garbled, at best, by others. All that because you are too
lazy to add an asterisk once in a while?

In article <oFRuf.98607$J11.2099004@wagner.videotron.net>,
napsterneorenegade@hotmail.com says...

> So which of these newsgroups do you claim as your own, and
> plain-text-only, your majesty?

If you insist on using html to communicate there are a huge number of
web-based forums you can use that welcome html. I administer one on a
web site I maintain for a client and can tell you, I spend a lot of time
upgrading and patching the code used for that forum to combat security
holes and possible problems, none of which would exist if it were a plain
text forum. Nobody is forcing you to participate in usenet newsgroups.
You are just simply being told that this is a plain text medium and asked
to use plain text to communicate here.

Seems reasonable to me.

--
CQ

[Back to original message]