Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!jeffd From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Flames Message-ID: Date: 8 Feb 90 11:17:06 GMT References: <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> <5659@blake.acs.washington.edu> Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Lines: 24 In article <5659@blake.acs.washington.edu>, Tom Maddox writes: > How about if you plead guilty to being a lying, self-serving hypocrite, Peter? > > 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. > Hmmm. I read almost all of Peter's postings to groups I subscribe to, and virtually all, if not all, of his critical postings are indeed issue-related, not ad hominem. I see Peter as being neither a liar nor a hypocrite. As for being self-serving, whom *should* he serve? Again, I guess, we go back to the definition of a flame. If a flame is only a personal attack, rather than a strong criticism of a suggestion, then Peter is likely correct. Indeed, Peter *is* an alter boy compared to the knee-jerk spite of Trish or the juvenile nastiness of Tricky Dicky. Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.