Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!dptg!ulysses!terminus!attdso!westmark!att!cbnewsj!ecl
From: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: why not use alt.flame? (Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION -- talk.politics.gay)
Message-ID: <3757@cbnewsj.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Feb 90 17:36:39 GMT
References: <34044@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 21

In article <34044@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> goldfarb@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) writes:
> In article <90031.152743YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> YZKCU@CUNYVM (Yaakov Kayman) writes:
> )yet one more home for flameage. Alt.flame exists solely for that purpose.
> )Why not use it for all flames for or against homosexuality as well?
> 
>     Because you can't get the people to move the discussion there. Maybe
> a specialized group will work better in that regard. (Maybe I'm fooling 
> myself.) 

As a veteran of five years with the net, I can state with some conviction:
	Yes, you are fooling yourself.

This is not intended as a flame.  This is why alt.flame was created and it
would be nice if it worked this way, but it exists, and net.flame existed
before, and we still have the traveling {homosexual,rape,religion,you-name-it}
flame war.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 201-957-2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
If I am not for myself, who is for me?  If I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now, when?  --Hillel