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 Message-ID: <11407@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 11 Feb 90 05:50:46 GMT Organization: Lone Star Cafe Lines: 57 In article jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> Speaking of your collection of my mail: would you mind telling me how you >> get it? >Oh, I suspect she has people explain it to her. {|8^)] Well, some of it, yes. For instance, until the person involved explained it to me, I thought that Peter's message outlining his intention to destroy sci.aquaria, sci.skeptic and sci.military was just a sick joke. ------------------------------ In article jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <5659@blake.acs.washington.edu>, Tom Maddox writes: >issue-related, not ad hominem. I see Peter as being neither a liar nor >a hypocrite. But he does lie, Jeff. I caught him at it in this newsgroup just last month. Plus he was lying when he said he only "committed" one flame last year. >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, Your definition is woefully simplistic and naive -- flames are in the eye of the beholder. Peter has been writing flames for years and you and he can deny it and play all the little semantics games you want but nothing is going to change that. Tom is right when he says that Peter is conveniently forgetting the malicious intent of his articles. >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. Or to the vicious knee-jerk juvenile hypocrisy of Jeff Daiell, for that matter. In fact, I understand that it was Peter the altar boy who was responsible for stopping you from cross-posting your flames to the aquaria groups. ------------------------------ In article <6UL1.-8xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> But you didn't apologize for what you said. >Nor should I. Fine with me, dear, I'm not asking you to -- the fact that you re- fuse to apologize for the lie you told is proof of both your hypo- crisy and your vigilanteeism and that, after all, was what my ori- ginal question was about. ------------------------------ In article jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >If the net does not adopt my proposal that we post thumbs-ups >as well as thumbs-downs, I guess victims of flames will just >have to survive asbestos they can. You know, Jeff, it would help a lot if you didn't write quite so many flames yourself. I don't know about news.admin, but you're definitely in the lead in terms of numbers in n.g.