jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (01/23/90)
Folks have been knocking flames for years, but it seems like the
last few days have seen an increase in the number of calls for
self-control. Thinking about it, I came up with an idea to increase
the civility level on the net.
Altho the guidelines seem to discourage "Me, too" postings, perhaps
we should *encourage* pats on the back. When someone makes a posting
that is helpful, insightful, clever, kind, or whatever, why *not*
tell that person via the net rather than email?
Besides increasing the goodwill level, it might also cause folks to
go back and read a good posting they missed -- or reread one they
just skimmed the first time.
And if it "wastes bandwith", well, the same thing is said about
flames.
Jeff Daiell
--
If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread,
Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead.
-- Don Paarlbergtneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (01/24/90)
In article <DB91ZK4xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >Altho the guidelines seem to discourage "Me, too" postings, perhaps >we should *encourage* pats on the back. Unfortunately the classic "Me, too" posting is not a pat on the back. The classic "Me, too" posting is: Recently someone asked for the Frobozz sources. I would like them too!! -- "How can a man of integrity get along /// Tom Neff in Washington?" -- Richard Feynman /// tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) (01/24/90)
In article <DB91ZK4xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: > >Folks have been knocking flames for years, but it seems like the >last few days have seen an increase in the number of calls for >self-control........perhaps we should *encourage* pats on the back. >When someone makes a posting >that is helpful, insightful, clever, kind, or whatever, why *not* >tell that person via the net rather than email? > Hmm, I kinda like the idea...but what would we call it when we do the opposite of flaming? Watering? I just got watered on the net..... Please don't water me, I'm only asking Okay, please take the waters to /dev/null/ Didja hear about the latest water wars on the net? Hmm, I'm not sure that it would work, but sounds kinda fun, doesn't it? [What do you think Karen?] Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%%%%%%%%%% A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire %%%%%%%%%%%%
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/24/90)
In article <120@uncmed.med.unc.edu> unccab@uncmed.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) writes: = In article <DB91ZK4xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: => => Folks have been knocking flames for years, but it seems like the => last few days have seen an increase in the number of calls for => self-control........perhaps we should *encourage* pats on the back. => When someone makes a posting => that is helpful, insightful, clever, kind, or whatever, why *not* => tell that person via the net rather than email? => = = = Hmm, I kinda like the idea...but what would we call it when we do the = opposite of flaming? Watering? I think the term of art is stroking. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
jxxl@huxley (John Locke) (01/25/90)
Okay. How many flames does it take to equal the resource consumption of one 60K posting in comp.mail.maps, or a pair of 50K postings to comp.binaries.apple2? These are just a few examples of tremendous resource consumers that are of marginal utility here. Not that I'm suggesting canning them. I'm sure someone, somewhere needs this stuff. And we don't have a problem storing it. But I can't believe that flames have that big an impact. Obviously, if people are replying to them, people are reading them. Interaction is the key draw of the USENET.
stefan@hpbbi4.HP.COM (#Stefan Bachert) (02/02/90)
I agree with you.
hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (02/03/90)
In article <22025@unix.cis.pitt.edu> bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) writes: >THINK MCFLY! THIS IS ALT.FLAME! If you want "sensible" go whine in soc.women. No, my followup was not in alt.flame. Yours _was_ (and is) x-posted to soc.women. You want flames? Wait for 'em, Bam Bam.... I'll get back to you. Or maybe not... no evidence that I can see that you'd understand a damn thing I'd say, anyway... hb -- Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET)
ggw@dukeac.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) (02/10/90)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> [commentary about what constitutes a "flame"] >>jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >>> I would like to point out some legitimate reasons for flaming: > >>There are no legitimate reasons for flaming. The only reason for flaming is >>to let off steam, and there are better ways to do that. > >I agree. I note only my current .signature: > > There is one difference between a discussion and a flame. A discussion > is about an issue. A flame is about someone involved in a discussion. This seems to be degenerating in to semantic quibbling about what constitutes a "flame". In the early days of the net, one of the original "flame wars" errupted over an unthinking gender-based stereotypical comment about how "even my sister hacks computers for a living." The resulting flame war still persists with sporadic flare-up to this day (even though the original progenitors are relativly quiet on the net). I don't recall that the "flames" were particularly aimed at the personalities of the people involved, but instead were intended to raise the conscience of the participants about their unconscious sexist attitudes. That is to say, that a flame is constituted by a discussion that a reader/poster chooses to label (explicitly or implicitly) as a flame. A particular topic thread can be a flame and still be quite rational and devoid of personal attacks. The definition of a flame is ultimatly up to the reader. -- Gregory G. Woodbury ggw@dukeac.ac.duke.edu ...!mcnc!ecsgate!dukeac!ggw System Manager - dukcds Center for Demographic Studies, Duke University also at: ggw%dukcds@cs.duke.edu dwolfe@tucc.tucc.edu dwolfe@tucc.BITNET The Line Eater is a Boojum Snark! 2117 Campus Drive; Durham NC 27706
hl.rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (hl.rogers) (02/13/90)
In article <1746@dukeac.UUCP> ggw@dukeac.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: >chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >>>jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: Really, folks, can we take this to alt.flame now? It *is* fun, but news.* is the wrong place. Okay? Thanks. -- -- HL Rogers (hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM) Me? Speak for my company?? HA! "Call 202/653-1800 for a good time!" - John Matrow, 1989