Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!frk From: frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Flames Message-ID: <1121@mtxinu.UUCP> Date: 9 Feb 90 19:24:07 GMT References: <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> <57294@ccicpg.UUCP> Reply-To: frk@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski) Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley Lines: 30 In article <57294@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: #In article , 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 Bravo!! Way to go! I like your posting style. Please, we need more! Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)