Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!jeffd From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Flames Summary: Ending what? Message-ID: <20O1EWFxds8@ficc.uu.net> Date: 10 Feb 90 13:59:22 GMT References: <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> <57294@ccicpg.UUCP> Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Lines: 22 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. You obviously have me confused with someone else. I have never called for an end to flames. Indeed, I have pointed out cases where such are justified. What I *have* called for is the posting of thumbs-ups where *those* are justified. Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.