Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!milton!blake!maddox From: maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Flames Message-ID: <5659@blake.acs.washington.edu> Date: 8 Feb 90 04:09:23 GMT References: <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 30 In article <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >> In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> > I have in the past >> >year posted one flame. >> 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. >I plead guilty to failing to check my newsgroup lines in the case of Tom >Maddox. That doesn't make those articles flames. The fact that you disagree >with me does not make any article I posted to news.groups a flame. How about if you plead guilty to being a lying, self-serving hypocrite, Peter? The fact that you don't want to check your newsgroup lines doesn't mean you didn't write the articles. The fact that you want to present yourself as the altar boy of Usenet doesn't mean the articles weren't flames. And the fact that you are conveniently forgetting the malicious intent of your articles doesn't mean they weren't flames. And if regarding these or other flames (say, of Richard Sexton), you happened to be (by wit or serendipity) right about something *and* relevant, that doesn't mean the articles weren't flames. Does the phrase "whited sepulchre" mean anything to you, Peter?