Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!phri!roy From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Networks considered harmful Message-ID: <1989Dec19.141237.20470@phri.nyu.edu> Date: 19 Dec 89 14:12:37 GMT References: <8912190403.AA05387@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: news@phri.nyu.edu (News System) Reply-To: roy@alanine.UUCP (Roy Smith) Organization: Public Health Research Institute, NYC Lines: 32 I wrote: > the guy at the other end insisted we switch to fax. Seems that he gets > charged for both incomming and outgoing email and fax was cheaper! 702WFG@SCRVMSYS.BITNET (bill gunshannon) responded: > It is a shame to see supposed experts on communications who are apparently > as ignorent of what is really available as the general public. I'm not sure I understand. Are you are claiming I'm one of those "supposed experts"? I didn't say I thought FAX was better, just that the guy we were communicating with insisted (for good reasons or bad) that it was the preferred way to communicate. Since our goal was to send messages back and forth, not to prove a point, we switched to FAX. >So, someone please tell me "What is so great about FAX?" and why can't >those of us who use Email all the time convince the rest of the world >how much better it really is?? What's so great about FAX is that it works and it's ubiquitous. Remember the hoo-ha in Beijing a few months back? It seemed that FAX was the primary means of communication in and out of China. Every fax machine in the world can talk to every other fax machine because they all talk the same language. With email, you have your choice of uucp, smtp, pop[123], csnet dialup (whatever they call it), bitnet, etc, etc, etc. FAX works, email sort of works, and only that if you have somebody willing to care for it with kid gloves. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma"