"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:

> My browser can use html; those of many others cannot.  At first I thought it
> was only the Luddites who were emailing me to complain that their stone-age
> browsers weren't able to handle html.  Then I realized that I was guilty of
> Micro-____-ism: inconveniencing others to accomodate my bells and whistles,
> and calling it progress.  I later viewed it as a courtesy to the group not to

	I am inconviencing no one with their high powered newsreaders.
They can all filter me out. If they choose to be inconvenienced
they have no business complaining. 

	If they WANT to read my posts then they put up with the
inconvenience. 

	So far I have been told there are all of exactly THREE people
who have a problem. 

	I do not care if no one reads what I post. 

	If you want to understand this all, go read The Fountainhead and
Atlas Shrugged. 

	How else explain my being "given a chance" to post without the
format they demand. Was that so nice of him in response to saying
FILTER? 

	Some clown with an anal fixation knowing children are reading
this wants to insert pages of the RFC because IN HIS OPINION not
the committee's it is non-compliant. Is that not cute? 

	And let me ask in general, how long these folks have been into
computers, programming, the ARPAnet? I have 32 years in October
and it would have been 34 years except I turned down a job offer
at Oak Ridge to finish college. Anyone here want to play, "match
the credentials"? 

	I would rather this whole thing drop and folks with those highly
superior newsreaders just use their filters. If the newsgroup
owners contact me to the contrary that is a different issue. And
then my above choice. 

	But I really do not like users presuming to dicate to other
users based upon their own choice of software and their own
arrogance. 

	Any questions?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)