Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!mephisto!udel!rochester!rit!cci632!ccicpg!dave
From: dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Flames
Summary: oh yes, of course
Message-ID: <57294@ccicpg.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 90 06:14:28 GMT
References: <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> <QBM1Z-Cxds8@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: ccicpg
Lines: 25

In article <QBM1Z-Cxds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
> 
> 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.

Then we see by your own definition that the included text is
a flame.

Why was it posted here?  I thought you were calling for an end
to such things.

Of course, you may not consider name-calling a 'personal attack',
in which case you are merely stupid, not vicious and stupid.

Or you might realize that it is a very 'personal attack' in
which case you are not only stupid and vicious, but also
a hypocrite.

You do realize that this is just a 'strong criticism of a suggestion'
and not a 'personal attack'?


	Dave