Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Era Scarecrow]

>>> It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate 
>>> JS.  There
>>> aren't that many of you.
>>>
>>
>> There are enough.
>
> Apparently not. 
> http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
>
> I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who 
> have JS disabled.

  I use NoScript, so by default my JS is disabled for 99% of the 
sites I go to. That means you'll give up on me? Hmm :(

>> And it's beside the point anyway. Things that don't need
>> JS sholdn't be using JS anyway, regardless of whether you hate 
>> it or have
>> enough brain damage to think it's the greatest thing since the 
>> transistor.
>
> No, it *is* the point.  As a web developer, javascript is used 
> by the vast majority of users, so I assume it can be used.  If 
> you don't like that, I guess that's too bad for you, you may go 
> find content elsewhere.  It's not worth my time to cater to you.

  Unfortunately I need to disagree with you there. JS although is 
nice sometimes, I find more often a pain in the butt rather than 
a help. NoScript shows on quite a few sites that they have some 
10 or 20 sites they reference JS scripts from, which doesn't make 
sense. half of those sites tend to be statistic gathering sites, 
which I don't particularly trust. Actually I don't trust a lot of 
sites.

  Plus I'm a little more anal about what does and does not run on 
my computer; Last think I need when I open a Page is it loads ten 
or twenty extra things I don't care about, takes up resources I 
don't want to give up, uses more memory, and for a tiny 
convenience, or trying to make it more an 'application' 
experience rather than a web Page. In my mind, JS should be used 
to help you where HTML and CSS cannot go. Checking inputs for a 
form post, some menus, etc.

  I have refused to go to some sites that require you to disable 
NoScript or Adblocker Plus; I'm willing to allow access past 
those features it for my one or two visits but I refuse to 
disable/remove it. I just feel safer that way. I wonder if I 
didn't have it, how many gigs I would be waiting and using for 
ads and other useless crap.

> It's like saying you think cell phones are evil, and refuse to 
> get one.  But then complain that there are no pay phones for 
> you to use, and demand businesses install pay phones in case 
> people like you want to use them.

  Maybe... I consider myself simple and practical; I use features 
and items that serve their purpose (Usually specific). I enjoy a 
simple cell phone, no bells, no whistles. Give me access to 
dialing a number, hold a small list of names and numbers I dial 
recently or enter in, time and date. That's all I ever want. 
Instead they are pushing cell phones that are actually 
mini-computers (Android and smart phones); Nothing wrong with 
that I guess, but I just want a phone, nothing special.

  In the same regard you can compare that people could refuse to 
use a phone booth unless it has a computer hooked up, internet 
access, use it to check email and browse while you talk, or 
doesn't allow you to send text messages and enter a quarter to 
send it, and doesn't have a camera you can snap a picture of 
yourself to show how good or drunk you are to your friends.