ccc_simon@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia) (02/06/90)
In article <K:E1U34xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > ..on flames. But I would like to point out some legitimate reasons for > flaming: > > (1) To point out that a bad idea is bad. Sometimes, one has to repudiate > a bad idea with emphatic language to get the point across. Like going loony so that people will look at you, then saying what you mean Worked well for the guy who killed Lennon > (2) To alert those who might be unfamiliar with the flamee as to the > flamee's unsavory motives, Lacking ESP, I can only a person what I THINK anothers motives are.. > ...a knowledge of the individual might well make look less savory, it > would be perfectly legitimate to post a flame as that that individual's > character and motives. In other words, give the person no chance to change, persecute them on what you know of their past? > Since it is > unrealistic to expect them to show restraint (it's been tried!), a I don't know, I'm giving it a go now. What purpose has flaming anyway? It gives people a chance to get on a high horse and (often) use language that they haven't had an excuse for previously. So you can expect it from people whose arguements are so patchy they need a bit of verbal violence to take the audience's minds away from their imcomplete propositions -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Simon P Travaglia, || Kia Kaha E Hoa! University of Waikato|| PSI: 064 71000004::, Intr: spt@grace.waikato.ac.nz Private Bag, Hamilton|| Disclaimer: No-one here but me can read and write, New Zealand || and I can only write. What did I say? -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The distance you have to park from your apartment increases in proportion to the weight of the packages you are carrying.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/07/90)
In article <66.25cd4ad7@waikato.ac.nz> ccc_simon@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia) writes: >In article <K:E1U34xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> ...a knowledge of the individual might well make look less savory, it >> would be perfectly legitimate to post a flame as that that individual's >> character and motives. >In other words, give the person no chance to change, persecute them on what >you know of their past? We call this net.vigilanteeism. I've asked Jeff about it twice and apparently he thinks it's a fine idea. I've been unsuccessful in ascertaining whether he thinks this tactic should be applied to him but the fact that he refuses to answer my questions pretty much says it all. >What purpose has flaming anyway? It gives people a chance to get on a high >horse and (often) use language that they haven't had an excuse for previously. Not necessarily. To quote Harry Ugol and Dale Cook: ....a.f is not for heated discussions but is instead for creative and witty name-calling and other mindgames... <1115@male.EBay.Sun.COM> harryu@warpten.Central.Sun.COM Some of the best humor on the network appears as good flames. Some of them are witty, urbane, clever and downright funny. <10988@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com There does seem to be a lot of posturing going on here from netters who write flames but who insist that because they do not post to a.f or use four-letter words that what they write is not inflammatory. "But sun it is not, when you say it is not, And the moon changes even as your mind. What you will have it named, even that it is..."