Xref: utzoo news.admin:8283 news.groups:17640 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: alt.rant? (Re: Flames) Message-ID: <3YO1.E5xds13@ficc.uu.net> Date: 11 Feb 90 13:48:11 GMT References: <38193@apple.Apple.COM> <1746@dukeac.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 22 In article <1746@dukeac.UUCP> ggw@dukeac.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: > That is to say, that a flame is constituted by a discussion that > a reader/poster chooses to label (explicitly or implicitly) as a flame. > A particular topic thread can be a flame and still be quite rational and > devoid of personal attacks. The definition of a flame is ultimatly up to > the reader. Fine, then there's something wrong with current usage in which a spiteful personal attack without merit or relevence merely gets labelled a flame. It's this activity that's become far too common and that I'm saying is never appropriate. Perhaps it should be called a meaner word, like "rant". And we need a suitable ghetto for the top ranters on the net to expose their genitals at each other without disturbing the saner majority. I would like to note, though, that I recently had a look at alt.flame. I must say that most of the stuff in there falls into the "rant" category. I would like to note that someone has brought up another occasion on which I may have been guilty of flaming (or rather, ranting), and that's when Brad started up Clarinet. I apologise to all and to Brad in particular. I still remain apprehensive about Brad's service, but so far he seems to be keeping it under control quite well. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'