Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!attctc!rissa
From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: alt.rant? (Re: Flames)
Message-ID: <11420@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 13 Feb 90 05:05:17 GMT
Organization: Lone Star Cafe
Lines: 21

In article <3YO1.E5xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Fine, then there's something wrong with current usage in which a spiteful
>personal attack without merit or relevence merely gets labelled a flame. It's

How are you going to define "merit" and "relevance," Peter?  That's
like trying to define "flame."

>this activity that's become far too common and that I'm saying is never
>appropriate. Perhaps it should be called a meaner word, like "rant". And we
>need a suitable ghetto for the top ranters on the net to expose their genitals
>at each other without disturbing the saner majority.

Gee, I don't know, do you really think this will work?  Jeff refuses 
to move his flames to alt.flame, what makes you think he would move 
his rants to alt.rant?  Or do you prefer that he expose his genitals
in news.groups and news.admin?

>I would like to note that someone has brought up another occasion on which I
>may have been guilty of flaming (or rather, ranting)

Ah, memory coming back, I see.  This is great, Peter!