Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cstvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!scott
From: scott@cstvax.UUCP (Scott Larnach)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: net.flame
Message-ID: <21@cstvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 18:50:09 EST
Article-I.D.: cstvax.21
Posted: Fri Nov 15 18:50:09 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Nov-85 07:22:09 EST
Reply-To: scott@cstvax.UUCP (Scott Larnach)
Organization: Unix Support, Edinburgh Regional Computing Centre
Lines: 56
Summary: a vote for the removal thereof


A quick scan across a couple of newsgroups today produced the following:

-----
> From somebody
> **************************************
> Check fuel.
> Set intensity to KILL.
> Open FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> **************************************
> All right, so you're not a net-fascist; you're a net-jerk.
-----
> From: rsk@pucc-j (Wombat)
> Message-ID: <546@pucc-j>
> Listen up, mush-for-brains.
-----
> From: jrm@wdl1.UUCP
> Message-ID: <839@wdl1.UUCP>
> I nominate Gene Spafford for net.dictator. Votes of less than 30 caliber
> will not be accepted.
-----
> From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB)
> Message-ID: <1316@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
> ******************** FLAME ON:
> Well excuuuuse me, you arrogant little twerp.  I thought net.sources
> ******************** FLAME STILL ON, you little twerp.
-----

[ The above is a digest, not an inclusion. It is the first and
  hopefully the last volume of the ABUSIVE-INSULTS digest ]

 It seems to me that this little treasure trove is an eloquent enough
 argument against flames.  I suspect most of the people on the net are
 like me in that they don't want to spend most of their time wading
 through this kind of abusive and uncivilised crud.  "unsubscribe to
 net.flame" I hear you say.  None of this was taken from net.flame.
 But the influence is unmistakable.  It is interesting to note also
 that at least one of the contributers to this "digest" seems to think
 that abuse and insult is justified by including the word "flame" in
 the posting.  This is the net.flame mentality which is manifestly
 *not* being confined to that newsgroup.

 So this is a vote against flaming.  Faced with the above (and not a
 smiley to be seen - these guys are *serious*) it seems the only way
 to go.

 I plead "stamp out flaming before it stamps the net out".  And I vote
 for the removal of net.flame.  It is infecting other newsgroups and
 generally making reading the news a pain.  I want to read articles
 that have informative content, whether it be ideas or facts.
 Thoughtful *argument* is acceptable, fighting not.  You want a fight,
 take up boxing or join the army.  Keep it off the net, please.
-- 
Scott Larnach			Janet: scott@uk.ac.ed.cstvax
Edinburgh Unix Support		Arpa:  scott@cstvax.ed.ac.uk
Tel:	+44 31 667 1081 x2629	Uucp:  scott@cstvax.uucp