Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!texbell!vector!attctc!rissa From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Flames Message-ID: <11312@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 4 Feb 90 09:11:20 GMT Organization: Lone Star Cafe Lines: 39 In article <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >I plead guilty to failing to check my newsgroup lines in the case of Tom >Maddox. That doesn't make those articles flames. And I didn't say it did -- obviously where you post doesn't have anything to do with whether your article is a flame or not. Far many more flames are posted to the net as a whole than ever show up in a.f. The fact that you disagree >with me does not make any article I posted to news.groups a flame. And I didn't say it did -- obviously disagreements in and of them- selves do not necessarily count as flames either. >Sexton's behind the scenes shenanigans were completely relevant to the Don't be so defensive, Peter, you're entitled to say anything you want about Richard Sexton or anyone else. I just want to know why you think that the flames you write aren't flames. Why does it bother you so much to think that you write inflammatory material? >I committed one flame Oh, what an interesting concept. Bless me, Father Spafford, for I have sinned, I've committed one flame since my last confession. > Followups were directed to alt.dev.null, the best place >to put flames. Yeah, but you know that's really kind of silly and it never works. Tell me, have your tried using misc.test instead? >If you have any further complaints, well, put up or shut up. Oh no! You shouldn't think that, Peter, I don't have any complaints about you at all. On the contrary, I find you and your double-speak quite fascinating. You're almost as good as Capt Carnage, at least you don't write flames insisting that you don't write flames.