"What do you propose as an alternative to interactive websites?"
b) you don't need all of that "cruft" to serve up content
c) style sheets can give you almost as much control over the appearance as can scripting (and probably better, more efficient, less memory footprint on the client, MUCH lower bandwidth requirement, faster load times, yotta yotta)
d) if it requires scripting, maybe it should be done server-side instead
e) if a 'meta' tag can't control refresh rates, you're doing it wrong
Ever since some "bright-bulb" decided that SCRIPTED LANGUAGES within HTML was a *GOOD* thing, it (the script-monster from HELL) has grown into the bakemono that it is today. It's infected everything like a PLAGUE, and it's *EVERYWHERE*.
It's amazing how good a web site can look with standard HTML, tables, hot links, forms, etc.. And they load a LOT faster. It's also amazing just how "dynamic" content can be if the server does a reasonable amount of the work. But yeah, it's easier for lazy developers to just CRAM IN a bunch of script from 3rd party libraries, glue it together, and call it "a web site", and THEN spare their OWN servers from the extra bandwidth by having those ginormous libraries load from CDNs.
/me runs NoScript and if I can't read your content, I typically go elsewhere. It's a big intarwebs.