Well, I've definitely seen a lot of people claim (generally not word-for-word) that using a pointlessly-overlong encoding of newline that exists to cater to the design deficiencies of hardware from the nineteen-sixties is not bullshit, so... maybe? But only for rather mushy values of "need".

It's not totally right, but it's not totally wrong, either, kind of like the way the dimensions of the space shuttle booster are directly affected by the size of a pair of Roman war horses' asses.

CRLF was used verily heavily and thus got baked into a lot of different places. Namely, it conveniently sidesteps the ambiguity of "some systems use CR, others use LF" by just putting both in, and since they are whitespace, there's not much downside other than the extra byte.

Beyond that, there are many other clear and obvious connections between Hypertext Transfer Protocol and teletype machines. Many early web browsers were expected to be teletype machines [0]. So while it might be a bit of a stretch, I'd say this is far from "complete bullshit".

[0] - http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Proposal.html#:~:text=it%2...

Kind of.

Which part of it do you think is wrong?