[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: MIME/ascii/HTML annoyance etc....



In reading your message I have drawn some rather interesting conclusions.
A: it seems that in your opinion ascii is more than sufficient for any ideas
we have to convey.
    This being the case I would assume (from the wording of your msg) that
the first standard is all we should use, that being the case I can only say
"Talk about the pot calling the kettle black"...
by your reasoning morse (the first rf messaging standard) is more than
sufficient for any messages
 we may want to send over the radio waves, so I take it that voice is
obnoxious & unpleasant to receive (tell that to the astronauts), and that
packet (although ascii) being digital is again an obnoxious & unpleasant
form of communications. according to your reasoning we should all stick to
cw (my only reason for studying cw is to 1 day gain hf privileges, so I can
forget about cw)
as it was the first standard language/format for rf communications...

 Again I have to say : "Talk about the pot calling the kettle black"

DSCHULTZ@SSSP.HST.NASA.GOV wrote:

> David R Fordham wrote:
>
> >Instead of you trying to get an email program
> >which sends ASCII, might it not be just as good an
> >idea for them to get an email program which
> >can handle the rich, full, enhanced communications
> >technologies of the 1990's?
>
> [snip]....
>
> >Indents, pastel backgrounds, italics, bold, soft
> >fonts -- these CONTRIBUTE to communication, convey
> >more ideas and concepts than mere text, and are also
> >pleasing to the eye and soul when used properly.
> >It's like the difference between the tone of a
> >Morse Code signal and a voice.
>
> I beg to disagree. Multiple type fonts and fancy formatting tend to
> subtract from the message. If you have something worth saying, the
> English language and the ASCII character set should suffice in getting
> it said. When people try to distract my attention with cartoons and
> other graphics, it sometimes becomes apparent that what they are
> saying is not all that important in the first place. The world is
> rapidly moving in the direction that what you have to say is not as
> important as how you package your presentation, but I for one will
> hold out as long as I can for the old way.
>
> I grant you that graphical methods are sometimes better at
> transmitting information (circuit diagrams for one thing) but it seems
> like very few of the "enhanced" e-mail messages that come my way are
> using this capability for any legitimate purpose. Most of them are
> just trying to dazzle me with their brilliant HTML skills. I would
> prefer to be dazzled by their brilliant writing skills.
>
> >It is a demonstrable fact that people who read
> >plain text impute a negative meaning to a message
> >five (5) times as often as those who use formatted
> >text.  (That is, people who read a plain text
> >message are five times as likely to perceive that
> >the writer is hostile, critical, insulting,
> >obnoxious, hateful, discourteous, etc.. as a person
> >reading the SAME EXACT message with a pastel background
> >and a softer font.  The ratio goes even higher if
> >the writer is able to include graphics, such as
> >cartoon characters.)
>
> It has also been demonstrated (I can quote anonymous studies also)
> that when people switched from regular old ASCII text editors to the
> more complicated and expensive graphic-intensive text editors that
> the quality of their writing decreased along with their greater
> reliance on graphical gimmicks.
>
> >I mean, why, look at it!  The ASCII smiley face   :-)
> >was invented in response to a NEED that ASCII
> >cannot easily fill, but which the other
> >formatting methods can easily.  (BTW, how do you
> >send a smiley face in CW?)
>
> I'm not a CW guy but even I know what "HI" means in Morse code. Are we
> forgetting to teach the new hams about that? And the smiley face
> excels as a simple, elegant, low-tech way to convey that the previous
> statement was meant to be humorous.
>
> >Why limit everyone to corn meal crackers because
> >some people don't want to see steak, potatoes,
> >peaches with cream, and pecan pie on their plate?
>
> Why force everybody to pay for steak when some people are happy
> with crackers?
>
> As far as I'm concerned, you can use your fancy e-mail capabilities
> for one-on-one messages with your friends as much as you want. But
> for a mailing list like Amsat-BB, with several THOUSAND subscribers
> in all parts of the world, you should be considerate of the fact that
> some of your readers are not as well equipped as you are. Amsat-BB
> is read by people in countries where any form of internet access is
> expensive, and shell accounts may be all that they can use, with PPP
> access still unavailable or expensive. Even in the USA, many people
> still use such methods because it serves their needs and they would
> prefer to spend their money on more important things (like donations
> to Amsat for example).
>
> In many cases the new fads are just attempts by various companies to
> force their software to become the new industry standard. They have no
> interest is designing stuff that works with a competitor's product on
> the other end since their ultimate goal is to force the guy on the
> other end to buy their product also. Imagine if Icom built radios that
> could only talk to other Icom's, and Kenwoods could only talk to other
> Kenwoods. As hams, we would not stand for such a thing. Why should we
> allow such nonsense on our internet communications channels?
>
> >"Amateur Radio Operators are active in modern
> >communications methods."  Doug DeMaw
>
> >Ham radio operators should put a little thought into the
> >idea that we are COMMUNICATORS.  And satellite operators,
> >of all people, should be interested in FOSTERING and
> >PROMOTING modern communications methods, not discouraging
> >modern communications methods and technologies.
>
> We will foster and promote "modern" communications methods when it
> makes sense for us to do so, when it offers a demonstrable improvement
> over the old method. Moving satellite operations to the microwave
> bands and switching to digital modulation techniques will offer a real
> performance improvement over the old methods, and will make satellite
> operation available to more people in the future. Following the latest
> fads in e-mail and computer software does not offer the same improvement
> in the quality of communications, and forces people to buy expensive
> new computer hardware and software without any corresponding
> improvement in the quality of communications.
>
> Dan Schultz, N8FGV



--
KC7YPJ, Ryan Dorman
QTH: Victor ID, grid# DN431c
ICQ #3834602
kc7ypj@pdt.net
http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/5496





AMSAT Top AMSAT Home