N
Nicolai P. Zwar
Zak said:
No, it's not. It's quite true.
This is obviously not so, as there is disagreement about it.
Ah, yes, Mr. Taliban, that's the fundamentalist zealot speaking,
completely engrossed in his own ideology, which is the one true way of
the righteous, unable to see beyond the brim of your doctrines, which
are divine laws, whereas those who disagree with the one and only truth
-- which happens to always coincide with your very own point of view --
waving the bible of your religion (e.g. the w3.org specifications), and
casting out the demons from hell which are only out there to destroy the
world, er, web, or at least the way you in your mighty lofty and
undiluted mind have decided the web should be. No, thanks, go this way
alone, buddy. Fundamentalism of all kind is highly suspect to me.
Yet what you fail to show the slightest indication of, Zak, is that you
possess the ability to understand that there are some people who _do_
understand why _you_ think that Flash is bad for the web, but who simply
disagree with you.
Yes, and I still do. So far, you have yet to put forth some arguments
that would make me reconsider this.
Could be, could be. A butterfly in China... well, you know.
The keyword here is "if", Zak, because I neither believe in forcing
anybody to use Flash, nor have I ever posted anything that could be
interpreted that way. It is you who seems to want to force others not to
use Flash. Who is the one who wants to force people?
Every choice made by anybody has ramifications. So? And you think that
justifies forcing everybody else to make only "choices" that you
yourself would personally approve of? Who made you the ruler of the
world, er, web?
That is crap. It is patently clear that I can chose to exclude or
include people from my very own website in whatever way I see fit, no
ifs or buts, and certainly not rights or wrongs. If I want to program a
site that only works in Opera 6.0 with Flash installed and that leaves
everybody else locked out, I may be eccentric, but it's my and nobody
else's business, and it's my damn right to do so. Whether it would be
prudent to do such a thing is another story, but it's certainly not a
"right" or "wrong" question. I don't know about you, but I'm not living
under a dictatorship.
Nobody should be the one to dictate what is right or wrong about the
web, but I guess telling that to a fundamentalist is like asking the
head of El-Qaida if we can't just "all get along".
If he wants client-independent websites he should program client
independent websites.
I cannot and I don't want to. I don't want to force anybody to install
anything, in case you haven't noticed.
You can program a site that's perfectly usable without Flash, yet give
the site some extra audio-visual information using Flash.
It's not wrong at all. It's not a moral choice, which is something you
should really grasp. It's an ideological fallacy to expect that every
webpage in the world must be fully and in all aspects accessible and
readable for everybody and with every browser ever made. There is
nothing at all wrong about catering to special interests or limit your
audience.
Look who's talking. You are the one who wants to force your ideology on
others, you are the one who makes statements such as "Tim Berners-Lee
should be the one to dictate what is right or wrong". Who is forcing
anything onto you? I sure don't. In fact, I don't give a rat's ass
whether you have Flash installed or not or whether you would ever visit
a page I have programmed that uses Flash or not. That's your choice. I
make mine.
)