Posted by NRen2k5 on 11/16/04 11:36

CQ wrote:
> 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?

Yes I can. Unlike some people here, I don't spend 24 hours a day on usenet.

> 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?

It's not a matter of "too hard". It's a matter of "too tedious". I used
to be that tedious. It wasn't good for me.

> 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.

Which is why we all have antivirus and antispyware protection.

> 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).

He/she would have sorely deserved it.

> 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.

Simply not having civilization eliminates the very real possibility of war.

> 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.

A newsreader made to read HTML should employ protection from malicious
code. If it doesn't it's deficient and dangerous and shouldn't be used.

> 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?

All because they are too lazy to use a newsreader coded by something
smarter than a heroin-addicted squirrel monkey.

> If you insist on using html to communicate there are a huge number of
> web-based forums you can use that welcome html.

Who needs HTML there? They have good enough formatting as it is.

> 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.

And it isn't a plain text forum because nobody would be using it if it was.

> 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.

Nobody is forcing anybody to use outdated newsreaders. They're just set
in their ways.

- NRen2k5

[Back to original message]