Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!attctc!rissa From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Flames and why not Message-ID: <11406@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 11 Feb 90 05:43:04 GMT Organization: Lone Star Cafe Lines: 29 In article jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >PS - The word is vigilantism. No, it's not. In the first place, the word you're thinking of is "vigilance" which means to be alert and watchful. "Vigilantism" is not a word. Secondly, "vigilanteeism" refers to the behavior/attitudes of some- one who is a vigilante, ie, someone who shares your belief that netters have the right to flame each other another around the net in an effort, as you put it: To alert those who might be unfamiliar with the flamee as to the flamee's unsavory motives, which might cast an idea that would otherwise look innocent in a more realistic light. [...] Were he to make a suggestion, in a more-widely distributed group, that seemed innocuous, but which a knowledge of the individual might well make look less savory, it would be perfectly legitimate to post a flame as that that individual's character and motives. --Jeff Daiell Jeff, what makes you think a) that you are qualified to judge any- one's character or motives about something that does not directly concern you; b) that people never change; or c) that anything will be solved by you chasing someone else around the net in an effort to "alert" other netters about past slights and insults?