> Xahgmail.com> writes:

>> On Aug 8, 10:06 am, Phil Carmody yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:

>>>Xahgmail.com> writes:

>>>> On Aug 8, 7:56 am, Phil Carmody yahoo.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>>Xahgmail.com> writes:

>>>>>> On Aug 7, 10:54 pm, Tim X wrote:

>>>>>>> I disagree with your suggestion that HTML is technically superior. You
>>>>>>> can't just make a sweeping statement like that without actually defining
>>>>>>> what it is that e-mail is supposed to provide. As someone else pointed
>>>>>>> out, an F16 is technically superior to a bicycle, but if allyou want to
>>>>>>> do is go to the corner shop, that technical superiority is not only a
>>>>>>> waste, but also a handicap.

>

>>>>>> HTML is simply technically superior. Sure, F15 is better than bicycle
>>>>>> but ridiculous. However, HTML is better than plain text in email is
>>>>>> not ridiculous. It is the standard the world uses by large, and people
>>>>>> want rich text in email. Wikipedia says the support for html email in
>>>>>> email programs is 97%%.

>

>>>>> An utterly spurious statistic. Support for Finnish emails in
>>>>> email programs is probably closer to 100%% than 97%%, but that
>>>>> doesn't mean that everyone should be or wants to be using
>>>>> Finnish.

>

>>>> Ok. You used analogy to refute my reason. What is your real argument
>>>> that the ability to send/receive html formatted mail in emacs is not a
>>>> good thing?

>

>>> You are aparently too dense to see my real argument in
>>> the above, so there's little point in me putting forward
>>> a real argument on a different point. The incentive to
>>> play along with your trolling really isn't that great.

>

>> Let me be direct and honest. I don't see your point, and i was very
>> matter of fact, and asked what is your explicit reason for your
>> argument.

>
> You don't just not see my point, you are unable to understand
> what point I was addressing. Read, reread, and reread again.
> Eventually you may work out that the point I am addressing is
> your flawed argumentation style. (It says logical fallacy all
> over it, but I can't recall precisely what its common name would
> be at this time of night.)
>

>> Now you are calling me troll. It's ok. I'm used to it. No hard
>> feelings ok?

>
> Pity's not a hard feeling, so no hard feelings.
>

>> O, about your F15 vs bicycle analogy.

>
> I give up. You're painfully dense.