Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!knrgroup
From: knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: proposal: comp.sys.mac.NeXT
Keywords: NeXT
Message-ID: <1990Nov11.095718.3793@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 90 09:57:18 GMT
References: <15460@slice.ooc.uva.nl> <512@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <273afd67-155.3comp.sys.mac.misc-1@tronsbox.xei.com>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 25

I've noticed an interesting trend. Regardless of the newsgroup or topic,
whenever there's a flame war, there are people who will eventually
make the following arguments:

1.  The debate in question is boring and off the topic (disregard the
    fact that a large number of people are getting involved in the 
    debate and that many people seem to be TOO rather than UN-interested).

2.  The opposition is egregiously wrong on such and such points.  However,
    the opposition is not entirely without merit in their arguments.
    Let's just stop talking about this, shall we?

I sometimes tend to fall into the 2nd mode.  Others fall more often into the
first.  The 2nd mode of argument is probably as useless as the first in that
the debater insults or criticizes the arguments of his opponent before
extending the hand of reconciliation.  Kind of like saying, "Here, take that
punch.  Now, we can shake hands."  

Have others noticed this phenomenon?  I think it is a much a motivator for
the continuation of flame wars as it is an attempt to end them.  

Lest people get the wrong impression; this post is not an attempt to end 
any flame war. It is just an observation about life as I see it on the net.

Flame away.