If you're expecting me to say "Made ya look," I'm not. Believe it or not, I'm actually quite serious. And I'll give a quick explanation why.
Since HTML can be coded wrongly, it allows more people to put up websites, especially if their strong suit isn't website building. I suppose there are some purists who think that such people shouldn't build websites at all, but then what would we look at?
I know of some websites that have HORRIBLE coding... and great content. The webmaster might have his strong suit in art, or in writing, but not HTML. So do we say that he should take his website off the net, simply because he doesn't quite know how to code it right?
On the other hand, there are sites that check out 110% in every validator under the sun, and are a snore with a capital ZZZZZZZZZ.
Secondly, the ability to have "bad HTML" gives webmasters a starting point. The fact that they can PUT a site up gives them a sense of triumph. The problem starts only when they decide to rest on their laurels, and don't think they need to improve. (Come to think of it, I think that was Microsoft's mistake, too.)
Anyways, there's my position, I will head off and start coding in HTML 2.0, while you proceed to scream your <font> tags off.
Puts fry pan on moniter, waiting for flames