Xref: utzoo soc.singles:12963 alt.flame:1335
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!husc6!hao!gatech!udel!burdvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!mikep
From: mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.flame
Subject: Flames
Message-ID: <8612@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jan 88 19:24:54 GMT
References: <7728@sunybcs.UUCP> <1429@quad1.quad.com>
Reply-To: mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 25

In article <1429@quad1.quad.com> oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>You don't want to have me FLAME you -- take my word for it.

Fai, you probably don't want to flame Oleg.

A similar thing happened to me.  Someone told me that 
Dorothy's flames were the ultimate.  However, at that
time, I had yet to see proof.

So, on this very column (soc.singles), I purposefully baited
her.  I guess she caught on and didn't respond (got a lot of
flames from OTHERS, though).  When I reached her (or she reached me)
through EMail, I asked her for a sample.  She included a flame
directed towards someone else on the startrek board.  Then, as 
a gift, flamed a flame towards me.  

Well, I have to say, I can't think of anything that would print
her flame.  It was bad (read: good).  Not a thing for timid people
to read.  Usually these old timers on the net have some flame
ability (either natural or built up over time) and to purposefully
bait them is foolish (unless you aren't affected by flames).

Take a lesson from a learned one.

-MikeP