<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Florin Iucha <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:florin@iucha.net">florin@iucha.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 01:46:49PM -0500, Robert Nesius wrote:<br>
> > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:54:11AM -0500, Justin Krejci wrote:<br>
> > > Using HTML email<br>
> > is a<br>
> > > lot easier for people to communicate than plain.<br>
> ><br>
</div><div class="im">> Proof by contradiction:<br>
> Let it be easier to communicate in plain text than HTML.<br>
> Then everyone would want to communicate in plain text at all times.<br>
> Not all books or emails or newspapers are written in plain text.<br>
> In fact most aren't.<br>
> Therefore plain text is not easier.<br>
<br>
</div>And people wear make-up and spend hours dressing up and combing their<br>
hair because it is easier than throwing on a sack?<br></blockquote><div><br>That's a straw-man argument, and thus an invalid refutation. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Pretty is one thing, art is another. I was asking for functional<br>
differences that _improve_ communications.<br></blockquote><div><br>Define "improve" and maybe we can see more clearly where the <br>disconnect here is. But that said, you've been given several and <br>if you're still not convinced than the issue is part semantics at <br>
best. <br> <br>-Rob<br></div></div>