Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!jrb
From: jrb@wdl1.UUCP (John R Blaker)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: re: re: re: repetitive re's.
Message-ID: <117@wdl1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Dec-83 02:07:56 EST
Article-I.D.: wdl1.117
Posted: Wed Dec 28 02:07:56 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Dec-83 01:56:35 EST
Lines: 33

to all and sundry (and in no particular order):

yes, in net.flame, it is permissible to flame anyhow-anyway-anything.  however,
there are certain things which, while not rules, are at least guidelines.  for
example, descending to the level of personal abuse, while it may be eminently
satisfactory, adds nothing to the force of your argument.

the same holds true for poor grammar and spelling.  it may afford more immediate
gratification to pound out your feelings on the keyboard; but it detracts from
the persuasiveness of your argument if the reader feels that you are an illiterate
idiot.

the english language is one of the most versatile tools created by human minds.
to misuse it weakens it, detracts from its value.  if words are used in a manner
which makes it difficult to determine what is meant by them, then future uses of
those words are subtly weakened.  language is a continuously self-modifying
process in the human mind.  repeated misuses can undermine words until their
meaning is leached out of them.

for grammar, let it be said that if i had not taken care to phrase some of the
sentences in this flame carefully, you would have no idea what they meant.
improper phrase misuse doesn't help the reader misunderstand what he has been
read.  see?

"there's glory for you."

	--humpty dumpty

for the greater glory of the sacred english language,


evelyn
(a modified dog)