Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!jeffd From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Flames Message-ID: Date: 11 Feb 90 11:54:46 GMT Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Lines: 98 In article <11407@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > 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. Destroy, or just relocate? Peter has demonstrated, for example, that he supported having an aqauria group. He just disapproved defrauding siteadmins in the process. > > ------------------------------ > 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. Trish, having a different definition from yours doesn't make the man a liar. I *work* with the guy -- if he were a liar, I'd know. He's moody, but not deceitful. > > >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. Well, I'm sorry you're anti-semantic. {|8^)] But again, if one defines a "flame" as a personal attack -- and that seems to be a fairly common definition on the net -- then Peter isn't much of a flamer. And pointing out that certain moves are improper -- the oft-cited con.aquaria being one -- isn't malice. You *do* have a persecution complex, don't you? > > >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. Let's have some examples of "vk-jjh", Trish. As for the cross-posting to con.aquaria, I did it a small number of times on the theory that, since Tricky Dicky didn't mind improper placement for the group itself, he couldn't object to improper placement of a few articles. Fair is fair, no? > > ------------------------------ > 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 What lie, Trish? You keep making that rather strong accusation without ever supporting it. McCarthyism ill becomes you. I thought something Blair had posted was posted by you and commented on it; when I saw my mistake I apologized. > ------------------------------ > 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. Uh, Trish? The above is a pun (you know, a play on words), not a flame. Patiently, Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.