Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!attctc!rissa From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Flames Message-ID: <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 2 Feb 90 08:38:04 GMT Organization: Lone Star Cafe Lines: 18 In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > I have in the past >year posted one flame. I was apologetic about it at the time, and I shouldn't >have done it. I'm just dying of curiosity, Peter -- I read a lot of flames from you last year including all those angry, bitter shouting ones you wrote about sci.aquaria and all the ones that showed up in alt. flame in response to Tom Maddox. Now, of all the inflammatory articles you posted last year, which is the only one you consider to have actually been a flame? >The essence of the flame is the irrelevant ad-hominem argument. [...] >And there is never a legitimate reason for flaming. Peter, you write reasonably good flames from time to time -- why are you so relunctant to acknowledge them as such?