Xref: utzoo news.admin:8246 news.groups:17416 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!attctc!rissa From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: Flames and why not Message-ID: <11352@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 7 Feb 90 09:11:44 GMT Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Lone Star Cafe Lines: 34 In article <66.25cd4ad7@waikato.ac.nz> ccc_simon@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia) writes: >In article , jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> ...a knowledge of the individual might well make look less savory, it >> would be perfectly legitimate to post a flame as that that individual's >> character and motives. >In other words, give the person no chance to change, persecute them on what >you know of their past? We call this net.vigilanteeism. I've asked Jeff about it twice and apparently he thinks it's a fine idea. I've been unsuccessful in ascertaining whether he thinks this tactic should be applied to him but the fact that he refuses to answer my questions pretty much says it all. >What purpose has flaming anyway? It gives people a chance to get on a high >horse and (often) use language that they haven't had an excuse for previously. Not necessarily. To quote Harry Ugol and Dale Cook: ....a.f is not for heated discussions but is instead for creative and witty name-calling and other mindgames... <1115@male.EBay.Sun.COM> harryu@warpten.Central.Sun.COM Some of the best humor on the network appears as good flames. Some of them are witty, urbane, clever and downright funny. <10988@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com There does seem to be a lot of posturing going on here from netters who write flames but who insist that because they do not post to a.f or use four-letter words that what they write is not inflammatory. "But sun it is not, when you say it is not, And the moon changes even as your mind. What you will have it named, even that it is..."