ted@frf.omron.junet (Ted Timar) (06/16/89)
I am trying to correct misinformation spread on the net. This is not a flame. This is a public message. In article <1989Jun15.023616.2641@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: > In article <726@lilink.UUCP> mikej@lilink.UUCP (Michael R. Johnston) writes: > : C'mon Bill, can't you MAIL this to him? Must we all read this? > > The obscenity of someone displaying their cesspool of a mind while > having the gall to flame another on wholly specious and libelous > grounds is a sufficient reason to flame that someone. There is no such thing as "sufficient reason to flame" where a flame is a message posted to the net. If you feel it is required, MAIL the flame. There is no reason that others should have to see a flame. If you absolutely must flame, because you feel that you cannot control yourself, please, at least control yourself enough to keep it out of news.admin, or any information newsgroup. Flames are in no way information. They don't belong in the news, or comp heirarchies. Someone somewhere, feeling that flame postings are inevitable created a group called alt.flame. That is the only place on the net that welcomes flames. > Mere obscenity is hardly an adequate reply, but it is the most that > may be done on the net. Obscenity may or may not be an adequate reply, but if "done on the net" means posting, please consider that it does offend people on the net who had no association with the initial issue. I am not overly offended by obscenities, but I know many who are. Please don't post them. Please don't followup without reading what follows. -- Some related comments here. 1) I have, on different occasions, sided with and against Brad. I know him personally, but unlike others, judge the deeds, not the person. This article could be about any topic, its relationship to Brad's posting is irrelevant. I'm not taking sides in the dispute in this article. 2) It is a sad day for the net when I find myself posting an article to news.admin, "a newsgroup for discussion of topics relating to administration of news" (quotation is more or less accurate), when the topic is completely covered in news.announce.newusers. 3) I have directed followups to news.admin. This is meant for those who would like to discuss the topic of what is appropriate for postings, which actually is a news.admin issue. Please remember that the issue has previously been discussed at length, and hardly deserves more net bandwidth, but that is probably an opinion call. 4) For those who feel like flaming me, by mail only please, it is important to note that the gateway into Japan is not fully bi-directional. Replies to this address will not reach me. I can be reached at the addresses listed in my .signature. 5) These opinions are derived, mainly from the articles in news.announce.newusers and from personal experience. 6) By posting these comments, I am not making any statements on behalf of my employer. Nor am I a spokesman for those who run the net, as there are no such people. -- Ted Timar tmatimar@watmath{,.waterloo.{edu,cdn,cs.net},.uwaterloo.ca,.uucp} uunet!watmath!tmatimar uunet!hamlet!ted