Subject: The Joys of Bandwagonning (was: Links not underlined?)
From: Arjun Ray <aray@nmds.com>
Date: 1997/09/12
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Message-ID: <3418d83e.3546655100@38.8.213.2>
Organization: FUDGE Dispersal Systems
References: <3414d5ca.5638543@news.wave.co.nz> 
	<34156058.63DA15B6@net-web.com> 
	<3415b311.3340470152@38.8.213.2> 
	<3416DA86.7260164@net-web.com> 
	<3416eb83.3420516783@38.8.213.2>
	<34170552.ABF8A667@net-web.com>
  
In <34170552.ABF8A667@net-web.com>, 
"William H. Sansbury" <webdesign@net-web.com> writes:

| The point to which you take such extreme offense was extra information,

No, it wasn't, and that you haven't understood this probably explains
why you think you've been attacked personally. Usenet is ultimately
impersonal. For every William Sansbury willing to learn, there are
hundreds of others who will *continue* to post bogus information.
Stick around in ciwah long enough, and you'll see that the particular
bogosities don't matter as much as their unifying theme. 

[ And that theme is not new. Try the Dejanews Query Filter form at
<URL:http://www.dejanews.com/home_sf.shtml>. First, specify only the
newsgroup: comp.infosystems.www.providers, which was obsoleted by
ciwah in Spring 95. There will be 11905 articles. Then, try the search
keyword 'stylesheets': there will be 19 hits. Follow some of the
threads and you'll see that "hit a nerve" isn't really the quality of
exasperation involved. The phenomenon at issue is memetic. ] 

| something which I thought would help the person asking the question.

Here is the "extra information" that was offered:

> These methods are part of the Cascading Style Sheets technology,
> currently supported only by IE and Netscape Communicator (NS 4.0).

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to argue that it helps people to
be "informed" that these two implementations are the only ones around
(and it may help further to have the fact elided that their support is
buggy and incomplete.) The persuasive force of the word "only" is what
it's all about...

For instance, there's the conventional wisdom that the Mosaic spawn
are the be-all and end-all of the Web: surely it must be a noble and
helpful public service to reinforce the CW? "Look no further, this is
it. The latest. The greatest. The you-better-believe-it bestest." 

Then, there's the hoopla to the effect that stylesheets are "new". It
should follow then, should it not, that only the latest versions of
[insert CW favorites] could conceivably support stylesheets: How could
it possibly be otherwise? The CW darlings are well behind the curve?
Unthinkable! No no no. Much better to lend credence to a myth. 

Then again, there's the sheer romance of the Web and Internet. Hi-tech
is "in", and a herd of avant-garde self-consciousnesses needs to be
comfortable about stampeding over the bleeding edge. Marketers call
this "branding". The general phenomenon consists of certain buzzwords
acquiring almost totemic significance: they are to be touchstones of
all things "new", "innovative", "good", "advanced", yada yada yada in
that gushy vein. It should be natural, logical, and incontrovertible
to attribute anything and everything praiseworthy to the totems: and
as one "informs" others, so will they in turn "inform" yet others.
Invoking totems should be the safest way not only to "belong" but also
to invite others to "belong".  

Facts don't matter; they cause needless "controversy" and "hostility".
The point isn't to know, it's to believe. And, of course, to spread
the gospel.

| And to the extent of ninety-five or more percent of the people who
| use the web, my information was correct.

Ah, a parting shot!

If you're saying that [insert impressive percentage] of the "people
who are supposed to matter" are stuck with some version of bloated
trailing-edge crippleware, you're probably right. Or, if you're saying
that they don't know any better, you're probably right again. But, if
you're saying that they would rather not know any better, I'll have to
thank you for underscoring my essential point so neatly:-)

:ar 
-- 
NETSCAPISM /net-'sca-,pi-z*m/ n (1995): habitual diversion of the mind to
    purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from the
    realization that the Internet was built by and for someone else.
                                                  -- Erik Naggum