I completely agree, though I think it's a lot worse than you say.

Why do we insist on displaying information that is probably read more often on-screen than on-paper these days in an area that lends itself to printing on standardised paper sizes, and that was never very good for readability with the typical margin set-up even then? Basic text layout could be handled much better for on-screen use: see numerous discussions about layout for web pages. Supplementary content like charts, tables, diagrams, footnotes and citations/cross-references could be displayed in many more helpful ways, given the typical properties of a modern widescreen monitor, than the fixed, paper-based layouts typically available today. Again, even basic web pages are better at some of this stuff, and the layout and presentation tools in HTML/CSS are crude by professional design standards.

Why do we still present a bazillion hard-coded formatting options, when most possible combinations are only ever (a) ignored or (b) over-used with horrendous results? Pretty much everyone else, from serious publishers to people writing papers in LaTeX to those working on web content using HTML and CSS has been using structured, semantic mark-up with separate formatting rules since roughly forever.

Why do we still have all the emphasis on presentation anyway? Sure, formatting documents and laying out the information for good readability is important, but the content itself is also important. There are all kinds of things tools could do both to help streamline the editing process and to help authors to write better content. Sadly, the most help we get from typical word processors today is a spelling checker (in your country's variation of your native language if you're lucky), a grammar checker (which is wrong more often than it's right if you are a reasonably competent author writing in your native language), and simple metrics like word count and a few mostly-incomprehensible reading ease indicators.

And why are document review and process support tools, such as version labelling, adding comments and proposing edits, tracking changes, and recording approvals, all still in the Stone Age by computing standards? These are very important in a lot of business and other formal contexts, and form a major part of the way a lot of people work with digital documents. I shudder to think what the world economy loses just because of time wasted trying to pass basic feedback from one colleague to another while working on documents of mutual interest.

Clearly even niche markets in document editing have pretty vast potential, because it's one of the most common reasons many of us use computers and even if the media change, the need to communicate in more than 140 characters isn't going to die out any time soon. Moreover, some people do produce rather nice alternatives to heavyweight applications like MS Word and OpenOffice Writer, and there are various apparently successful small businesses (or groups within large businesses, in the case of companies like Apple) doing so. I don't understand why most of these seem to be confined to Apple systems, though, with few decent choices available for either Windows (where you'd think the dominant interest would lie from commercial developers) or the freebie platforms (with their legions of volunteers ready to contribute). There must be a killer business waiting to be born somewhere out there...

Ding Ding Ding! I believe we have a winner!

Bible Church theology - Jesus paid the punishment for our sins on the cross. When we in trust that, we are saved. All of our sins past, present, and future are forgiven. That means that if a believer gets depressed, mentally ill, or whatever and kills themselves, it's forgiven.

Even though this security in Christ is a fantastic deal, don't think that is a license to continue sinning. It's not.

I suspect that if you are not a Mongols member and they catch you wearing their colors, your severely beaten and bullet riddled body will eventually be found in the desert.