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
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (01/24/90)
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >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. news.groups.nice? Wayne();
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 %%%%%%%%%%%%
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/02/90)
In article <K:E1U34xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >(2) To alert those who might be unfamiliar with the flamee as to the > flamee's unsavory motives, And this was your excuse for your unprovoked attack on me when you mistakenly thought that Daffy was following up an article from me when in fact he was following up an article from Blair Houghton? As I recall you made up some nonsense about my supporting Richard Nixon, isn't that right? What you're saying here strikes me as nothing more than net.vigi- lanteeism. A lot of netters think you have some mighty unsavory motives yourself, Jeff, for example, your efforts to undermine sci .aquaria by cross-posting your flames there. Would you say that other people would be justified in following you around the net, warning other newsgroups about you because of the way you behaved in this instance? >Still, there are too many hair-trigger tempers on the net. Since it is >unrealistic to expect them to show restraint (it's been tried!), a "Them," Jeff? Or doesn't it count when your temper gets the bet- ter of you?
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/02/90)
In article <Z0F1AK5xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > I have in the past >year posted one flame. I was apologetic about it at the time, and I shouldn't >have done it. I'm just dying of curiosity, Peter -- I read a lot of flames from you last year including all those angry, bitter shouting ones you wrote about sci.aquaria and all the ones that showed up in alt. flame in response to Tom Maddox. Now, of all the inflammatory articles you posted last year, which is the only one you consider to have actually been a flame? >The essence of the flame is the irrelevant ad-hominem argument. [...] >And there is never a legitimate reason for flaming. Peter, you write reasonably good flames from time to time -- why are you so relunctant to acknowledge them as such?
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/03/90)
In article <11277@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > > And this was your excuse for your unprovoked attack on me when you > mistakenly thought that Daffy was following up an article from me > when in fact he was following up an article from Blair Houghton? I realized my mistake and posted an apology. A practice you might consider adopting. Jeff -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/03/90)
In article <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In article <Z0F1AK5xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > I have in the past > >year posted one flame. I was apologetic about it at the time, and I shouldn't > >have done it. > I'm just dying of curiosity, Peter -- I read a lot of flames from > you last year including all those angry, bitter shouting ones you > wrote about sci.aquaria and all the ones that showed up in alt. > flame in response to Tom Maddox. I plead guilty to failing to check my newsgroup lines in the case of Tom Maddox. That doesn't make those articles flames. The fact that you disagree with me does not make any article I posted to news.groups a flame. Richard Sexton's behind the scenes shenanigans were completely relevant to the subject at hand: whether or not the results of his sci.aquaria vote should be regarded as valid. I committed one flame in response to a series of increasingly heated messages posted by Blair Houghton in comp.lang.c on the subject of article attribution. Followups were directed to alt.dev.null, the best place to put flames. If you have any further complaints, well, put up or shut up. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/04/90)
In article <:OH1XWCxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >I realized my mistake and posted an apology. No, you apologized for your mistake in following up the wrong art- icle but you didn't apologize for what you said plus, as I recall, you posted your "apology" to sci.aquaria (although I could be wrong about the latter, you were cross-posting so many of your articles to s.a at the time). > A practice you might >consider adopting. And you likewise, Jeff dear. I noticed, however, that you skipped right over my comments on your very peculiar notion of net.vigilanteeism. Can I assume this means you agree with what I said? >What you're saying here strikes me as nothing more than net.vigi- >lanteeism. A lot of netters think you have some mighty unsavory >motives yourself, Jeff, for example, your efforts to undermine sci >.aquaria by cross-posting your flames there. Would you say that >other people would be justified in following you around the net, >warning other newsgroups about you because of the way you behaved >in this instance?
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/04/90)
In article <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >I plead guilty to failing to check my newsgroup lines in the case of Tom >Maddox. That doesn't make those articles flames. And I didn't say it did -- obviously where you post doesn't have anything to do with whether your article is a flame or not. Far many more flames are posted to the net as a whole than ever show up in a.f. The fact that you disagree >with me does not make any article I posted to news.groups a flame. And I didn't say it did -- obviously disagreements in and of them- selves do not necessarily count as flames either. >Sexton's behind the scenes shenanigans were completely relevant to the Don't be so defensive, Peter, you're entitled to say anything you want about Richard Sexton or anyone else. I just want to know why you think that the flames you write aren't flames. Why does it bother you so much to think that you write inflammatory material? >I committed one flame Oh, what an interesting concept. Bless me, Father Spafford, for I have sinned, I've committed one flame since my last confession. > Followups were directed to alt.dev.null, the best place >to put flames. Yeah, but you know that's really kind of silly and it never works. Tell me, have your tried using misc.test instead? >If you have any further complaints, well, put up or shut up. Oh no! You shouldn't think that, Peter, I don't have any complaints about you at all. On the contrary, I find you and your double-speak quite fascinating. You're almost as good as Capt Carnage, at least you don't write flames insisting that you don't write flames.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/05/90)
In article <11312@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > Oh no! You shouldn't think that, Peter, I don't have any complaints > about you at all. On the contrary, I find you and your double-speak > quite fascinating. You're almost as good as Capt Carnage, at least > you don't write flames insisting that you don't write flames. I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject of flames. As one of the top posters to alt.flame you are obviously an expert on the subject. I'd still be interested in seeing one of these supposed flames analysed. I'm sure you have a few squirreled away somewhere. Until then... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/05/90)
In article <11311@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In article <:OH1XWCxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >I realized my mistake and posted an apology. > > No, you apologized for your mistake in following up the wrong art- > icle I apologized for thinking you were Blair. But I still think it was a natural mistake -- you and she seem to share a reflexive spite. Jeff -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/05/90)
In article <THJ1WCxds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes of Trisha: > I'd still be interested in seeing one of these supposed flames analysed. > I'm sure you have a few squirreled away somewhere. Until then... ^^^^^^^^^^ Peter, why do you tempt me with straight lines like this? Jeff -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/05/90)
In article <.ZJ15V5xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > > I'm sure you have a few squirreled away somewhere. Until then... > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Peter, why do you tempt me with straight lines like this? I'm just nuts about your puns, I guess. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/05/90)
In article <F_J10F6xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <.ZJ15V5xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > > > I'm sure you have a few squirreled away somewhere. Until then... > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Peter, why do you tempt me with straight lines like this? > > I'm just nuts about your puns, I guess. I've never read acornier joke than that! -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/07/90)
In article <UZJ1AR5xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >I apologized for thinking you were Blair. But you didn't apologize for what you said. Jeff, we've been over this three times now, please pay attention. Yes, you apologized for thinking I was Blair, but so what? The issue is what you wrote in your flame, not at whom it was directed. > But I still think it >was a natural mistake -- you and she seem to share a reflexive >spite No, I have a reflexive left hook and a low tolerance for net.hypo- crisy. Blair, however, is an ex-Green Beret and no doubt has re- flexes of which neither you nor I are aware.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/08/90)
In article <11351@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In article <UZJ1AR5xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >I apologized for thinking you were Blair. > > But you didn't apologize for what you said. Nor should I. Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.
maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (02/08/90)
In article <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >> In article <Z0F1AK5xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> > I have in the past >> >year posted one flame. >> I'm just dying of curiosity, Peter -- I read a lot of flames from >> you last year including all those angry, bitter shouting ones you >> wrote about sci.aquaria and all the ones that showed up in alt. >> flame in response to Tom Maddox. >I plead guilty to failing to check my newsgroup lines in the case of Tom >Maddox. That doesn't make those articles flames. The fact that you disagree >with me does not make any article I posted to news.groups a flame. How about if you plead guilty to being a lying, self-serving hypocrite, Peter? The fact that you don't want to check your newsgroup lines doesn't mean you didn't write the articles. The fact that you want to present yourself as the altar boy of Usenet doesn't mean the articles weren't flames. And the fact that you are conveniently forgetting the malicious intent of your articles doesn't mean they weren't flames. And if regarding these or other flames (say, of Richard Sexton), you happened to be (by wit or serendipity) right about something *and* relevant, that doesn't mean the articles weren't flames. Does the phrase "whited sepulchre" mean anything to you, Peter?
maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (02/08/90)
In article <F_J10F6xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <.ZJ15V5xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: [with a coy toss of his locks]: >> Peter, why do you tempt me with straight lines like this? Smooch, with a bit of tongue . . . [leading Peter to reply, in a husky whisper]: >I'm just nuts about your puns, I guess. Smooch and groin bump, with lots of tongue-- Think you guys might carry on this affair in private? There are people reading this who have weak stomachs.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/08/90)
In article <THJ1WCxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject of flames. As one of >the top posters to alt.flame you are obviously an expert on the subject. Oh, Peter, you big silly, I explained this to you in my last arti- cle -- posting to alt.flame has nothing to do with writing flames. Considerably more flames are posted to groups like alt.sex, misc. misc, misc.headlines, talk.politics.misc, talk.abortion, talk.poli- tics.guns, talk.religion.newage, talk.rape, soc.men, soc.women, soc. singles, and of course, news.groups, than ever show up in alt.flame. Besides, regardless of what the intent was in the beginning, a.f no longer really functions as a catchall group where netters are sup- posed to "take" quarrels -- in fact, I'll bet that less 10% of all flames are posted to a.f. At this point, alt.flame functions as a sort of clubhouse in much the same manner that soc.singles, talk. bizarre and alt.sex do. >I'm sure you have a few squirreled away somewhere. Until then... No, sorry, I do have a surprisingly large collection of your hate. mail but I haven't made a habit of saving your postings. But thank you for your invitation. Until then.... .... won't you please explain why you're so relunctant to admit that your flames are flames? Pretty please?
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/08/90)
In article <5659@blake.acs.washington.edu>, Tom Maddox writes: > How about if you plead guilty to being a lying, self-serving hypocrite, Peter? > > The fact that you want to present yourself as the altar boy of Usenet > doesn't mean the articles weren't flames. > > And the fact that you are conveniently forgetting the malicious intent > of your articles doesn't mean they weren't flames. > Hmmm. I read almost all of Peter's postings to groups I subscribe to, and virtually all, if not all, of his critical postings are indeed issue-related, not ad hominem. I see Peter as being neither a liar nor a hypocrite. As for being self-serving, whom *should* he serve? 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, 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. Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/08/90)
In article <5659@blake.acs.washington.edu> maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) writes: > How about if you plead guilty to being a lying, self-serving > hypocrite, Peter? Put up or shut up, Tom. I'm still waiting for someone to produce one of these alleged flames. > Does the phrase "whited sepulchre" mean anything to you, Peter? No. Please explain in more depth. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/08/90)
In article <11368@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > No, sorry, I do have a surprisingly large collection of your hate. > mail but I haven't made a habit of saving your postings. Oh yes, I've mailed some angry letters. Hate mail if you like. I'm not proud of it, but I do get truly pissed off at some people. Thank you for bringing this point up, though. If you really, truly, feel you need to flame someone: do it in mail. Then don't send it. Of course I would never claim to be particularly good at flaming in Email either. Not nearly as good as some of your friends. Speaking of your collection of my mail: would you mind telling me how you get it? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/08/90)
In article <+GM1LY4xds13@ficc.uu.net>, Peter da Silva writes to Trish: > 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^)] Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/09/90)
In article <QBM1Z-Cxds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > > 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, > 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. Then we see by your own definition that the included text is a flame. Why was it posted here? I thought you were calling for an end to such things. Of course, you may not consider name-calling a 'personal attack', in which case you are merely stupid, not vicious and stupid. Or you might realize that it is a very 'personal attack' in which case you are not only stupid and vicious, but also a hypocrite. You do realize that this is just a 'strong criticism of a suggestion' and not a 'personal attack'? Dave
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/09/90)
In article <IHM1PCExds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > In article <+GM1LY4xds13@ficc.uu.net>, Peter da Silva writes to Trish: > > > 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^)] Why wasn't this posted to an appropriate newsgroup like alt.flame or talk.stupid? Or better yet, as has been mentioned here before, why didn't you just stand up and yell your cutsie joke over the wall? You're a very vicious little weasel, daiell. This is about the fifth posting in a row where you've attacked Trish and/or Richard. None of the articles, save this one, had anything to do with either of them; you just went out of your way to slam them. Considering that Richard is termporarily unable to respond, it's not only vicious but damn cowardly too. Must make you feel real big knocking someone that isn't around to defend themself. AND YOU'RE DOING IT IN THE WRONG NEWSGROUP. AND after you asked everyone nice-nice not to do it. A very hypocritcal vicious little weasel, indeed, daiell. Dave
frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) (02/10/90)
In article <57294@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: #In article <QBM1Z-Cxds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: #> #> 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, #> 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. # #Then we see by your own definition that the included text is #a flame. # #Why was it posted here? I thought you were calling for an end #to such things. # #Of course, you may not consider name-calling a 'personal attack', #in which case you are merely stupid, not vicious and stupid. # #Or you might realize that it is a very 'personal attack' in #which case you are not only stupid and vicious, but also #a hypocrite. # #You do realize that this is just a 'strong criticism of a suggestion' #and not a 'personal attack'? # # # Dave Bravo!! Way to go! I like your posting style. Please, we need more! Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)
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
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/10/90)
In article <57294@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: > In article <QBM1Z-Cxds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > > > > 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, > > 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. > > Then we see by your own definition that the included text is > a flame. > > Why was it posted here? I thought you were calling for an end > to such things. You obviously have me confused with someone else. I have never called for an end to flames. Indeed, I have pointed out cases where such are justified. What I *have* called for is the posting of thumbs-ups where *those* are justified. Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler - MDC - Douglas Aircraft - Long Beach, CA) (02/11/90)
Flame.... flame.... flame.... 'cummon Jeffd and Peter... you guys have shown yourselves to be above this kind of twaddle... we all know that you *won't* get the last word. We also know the best way to stop a flamer is to *ignore them*. So what do you say we save the bandwidth and let the other two (or was it three) flame away by themselves until they get bored and go back to a.f where this sort of self-gratifying balderdash can continue without the rest of the net being subjected to it? jmi jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (to the other two... please e-mail me all flames in response to this... that way I can just delete them without the rest of the net having to read the detritus)
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/11/90)
In article <+GM1LY4xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Oh yes, I've mailed some angry letters. Hate mail if you like. I'm not >proud of it, but I do get truly pissed off at some people. Thank you for >bringing this point up, though. If you really, truly, feel you need to >flame someone: do it in mail. Then don't send it. But if, by your own admission, this method doesn't work for you then why are you lecturing other netters on it? Peter, this is why people sometimes call you a hypocrite. >Of course I would never claim to be particularly good at flaming in Email Oh heavens, you're much too modest, dear, you write very good email flames, Peter. >Speaking of your collection of my mail: would you mind telling me how you >get it? Oh that's easy, I have a secret account at ficc with root passwd and I just log in and read everything in your files. Why? How did you think I get copies of your email?
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/11/90)
In article <IHM1PCExds8@ficc.uu.net> 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. ------------------------------ In article <QBM1Z-Cxds8@ficc.uu.net> 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. >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. >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. ------------------------------ 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 you told is proof of both your hypo- crisy and your vigilanteeism and that, after all, was what my ori- ginal question was about. ------------------------------ In article <WBM1B=Cxds8@ficc.uu.net> 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. I don't know about news.admin, but you're definitely in the lead in terms of numbers in n.g.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/11/90)
In article <11407@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In article <IHM1PCExds8@ficc.uu.net> 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 <QBM1Z-Cxds8@ficc.uu.net> 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 <WBM1B=Cxds8@ficc.uu.net> 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.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/11/90)
In article <11405@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In article <+GM1LY4xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >If you really, truly, feel you need to > >flame someone: do it in mail. Then don't send it. > But if, by your own admission, this method doesn't work for you > then why are you lecturing other netters on it? Peter, this is > why people sometimes call you a hypocrite. I don't always follow my own advice. Hell, I've admitted to actually flaming on rare occasions. Which one among us is perfect? Most of that hate mail is the result of someone else drawing me into a flame war in email. And most of *that* is after I have deperately attempted to logically refute some particularly mean-spirited attack. I have this horrible tendency to assume the best of other people, and believe that a rational response to a flame might actually work this time. > >Speaking of your collection of my mail: would you mind telling me how you > >get it? > Oh that's easy, I have a secret account at ficc with root passwd > and I just log in and read everything in your files. Why? How > did you think I get copies of your email? Well, most of it is probably forwarded to you by other gryphonites. But at least once you've referred to a letter that was sent from or to someone who didn't even know you. Either some superuser at a nearby site is snarfing mail and forwarding it to you, or a good friend of my brother's is lying through his teeth. I prefer to believe the former. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (02/12/90)
In article <551.25d4d56f@devsim.mdcbbs.com> jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler): > 'cummon Jeffd and Peter... you guys have shown yourselves to be > above this kind of twaddle... jeff daiell has so infrequently shown himself to be above twaddle that he is the first and only person to have finally reached a kill file for me in nearly four years of reading the net. It's a shame, in a way, because occasionally he posts something worthwhile and now I'll miss those postings too. Some of them I will perhaps see in a followup. (Hell, when you post 1/10th of the articles in news.groups like jeff _some_ of them will generate follow-ups. What's amazing to me are how few do, except for another nauseating stream of word-play.) I just wish he would cross-post his twaddle to alt.stupidity so I could kill it all that way and still see his genuine contributions. Or perhaps he could send the puns to alt.callahans and the net.circle-jerk crap to some alt.sex group but even they would probably get scabs from that overdone stroking. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet")) "Nice plant. Looks like a table cloth."
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/12/90)
In article <{L8CZ=@rpi.edu>, tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > In article <551.25d4d56f@devsim.mdcbbs.com> jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler): > > > 'cummon Jeffd and Peter... you guys have shown yourselves to be > > above this kind of twaddle... > > Or perhaps he could send the puns to alt.callahans and the > net.circle-jerk crap to some alt.sex group but even they would > probably get scabs from that overdone stroking. > I can only guess that by "net.circle-jerk" you refer to my suggestion that there be more posting of thumbs-ups. If that's the case, does that mean you consider only flames to be postable responses to articles? -- Thank you for not coercing.
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
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (02/13/90)
In article <QBM1Z-Cxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Hmmm. I read almost all of Peter's postings to groups I subscribe to, >and virtually all, if not all, of his critical postings are indeed >issue-related, not ad hominem. Flame does not mean ad hominem, despite what some people say.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/13/90)
In article <KYO1BK5xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Most of that hate mail is the result of someone else drawing me into a flame >war in email. Ahhhh, so now it's someone else's fault that you write hate.mail. I see. First you hand out advice you admit you don't take and now you're blaming other netters for the fact that you can't stop yourself from writing hate.mail. Gee, Peter, you should get a job at Tektronix. >Well, most of it is probably forwarded to you by other gryphonites. But Oh no, I get copies of your hate.mail from a variety of sources. >at least once you've referred to a letter that was sent from or to someone >who didn't even know you. WHAT!!!????????? You're kidding. Really?? Well, dog my cats. And here I thought for sure everyone on the whole entire net knows who I am by now. > Either some superuser at a nearby site is snarfing >mail and forwarding it to you, or a good friend of my brother's is lying >through his teeth. I prefer to believe the former. Oh. He's a friend of your brother's?
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/13/90)
In article <FVO1HZ1xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Destroy, or just relocate? Destroy. Sci.aquaria, sci.skeptic and sci.military. >Trish, having a different definition from yours doesn't make the man a >liar. No, what makes him a liar is the fact that he tells lies. And I'm not talking about different definitions or honest mistakes. >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. Flames are in the eye of the beholder. Peter has flamed too many people too often to get away with saying that he doesn't do it. >And pointing out that certain moves are improper -- the oft-cited >con.aquaria being one -- isn't malice. I didn't say it was, Jeff. You *do* have a persecution complex, don't you, dear. >Let's have some examples of "vk-jjh", Trish. Sure, here's one right here: > 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? What you did wasn't fair at all. I realize you are new to the net but contrary to what you seem to think, individual netters do not own newsgroups. Cross-posting your flames to sci.aquaria was a vicious, knee-jerk, juvenile hypocritical response. And besides, I didn't ask you to justify what you did, Jeff. I was merely commenting on the rumor that it was Peter the altar boy who finally persuaded you to stop dumping your flames in sci.aquaria. My goodness, you *do* have a persecution complex, hon. >What lie, Trish? <_1213Mxds8@ficc.uu.net> January 15, 1990. Go look it up. >Uh, Trish? The above is a pun (you know, a play on words), not a flame. Uh, Jeff? I know it was a pun: asbestos. That doesn't negate my reply, however. You do post more flames to this news group than anyone else. And rants, too. --------------------------- In article <+UO1SV1xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> >PS - The word is vigilantism. >> No, it's not. In the first place, the word you're thinking of is >> "vigilance" which means to be alert and watchful. >Trish, where do you think the word vigilante came from? From the Latin "vigilans." Why? What does this have to do with what you wrote: >> In article <GTL1JS8xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> >PS - The word is vigilantism. I repeat -- there is no such word as "vigilantism." You made it up.
morrison@ficc.uu.net (Brad Morrison) (02/14/90)
In article <1740@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: > Flame does not mean ad hominem, despite what some people say. Perhaps Webster (whose dictionary has been misused here quite often of late) doesn't define it that way, but I think the question here is one of usage. I've never heard anyone say, "My article was flamed", or "They roundly flamed my idea". Instead, we have "He flamed me", "I was flamed", and "I may get flamed on this, but . . .". That's about as ad hominem as it gets, with a person as the object of the verb. I contend that to post a flame is to address the personality, rather than the issue. In this context, "address" can mean anything from a mildly dissenting opinion to complete disagreement. Such a criticism doesn't become a flame until you attack the person, rather than the idea. It's a lot like what's happened to our nation's political system, where issues are rarely, if ever, discussed objectively. In fact, news.groups is something a political forum, with discussion of the important issue of newsgroup creation, calls for votes, even campaigning. Some would argue that political factions exist. Few can deny that personality and popularity contests have become firmly entrenched in this news group. Well, art imitates life. I guess UseNET imitates society. -- Brad Morrison (713) 274-5449
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (02/14/90)
It has been said that "flames are in the eye of the beholder".
This, of course, is nonsense. If Karen Valentino had interpreted my
posting praising her for her benevolence and reasonedness as a flame,
that would not have made it a flame (she didn't, if you'll recall).
Reality is independent of perception.
Jeff
--
Pun for the day:
"I'm a sucker for vampire stories."
-- Chuq von Rospachjeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (02/15/90)
In article <OVQ14M9xds13@ficc.uu.net> morrison@ficc.uu.net (Brad Morrison) writes: >In article <1740@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >> Flame does not mean ad hominem, despite what some people say. >Perhaps Webster (whose dictionary has been misused here quite often of >late) doesn't define it that way, but I think the question here is one >of usage. I've never heard anyone say, "My article was flamed", or >"They roundly flamed my idea". Instead, we have "He flamed me", "I was >flamed", and "I may get flamed on this, but . . .". Half of that's because people feel that they have been attacked when their ideas have been, and the other half is that you haven't listened to enough people. You also have to look at cases where people claim to be flaming. Haven't you seen lots of articles where someone says "FLAME ON" and then proceeds with something that isn't ad hominem? I have. -- Jeff
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/15/90)
In article <O6R13E7xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >It has been said that "flames are in the eye of the beholder". >This, of course, is nonsense. So you're saying flames are in the eye of the author? Hmmmm.... You know, I like this. I hereby declare all my flames, past, pre- sent and future, to be non-inflammatory. at that point trish, angelic
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (02/15/90)
I think at the very least a reasonable definition for flame
would require that the posting be negative. I'm surprised
that's not understood by all.
--
"Come to me, bend to me, kiss me good day;
Give me your lips and don't take them away."
From Lerner's and Loewe's BRIGADOON
and quite appropriate for February 14th!wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (02/16/90)
In article <O6R13E7xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: > >It has been said that "flames are in the eye of the beholder". >This, of course, is nonsense. The fact that you cannot understand what is and is not a flame does not grant truth to your own definition. Rather, it merely serves to explain why, when you *do* flame, you do it so poorly. [this is a flame] >Reality is independent of perception. Did Beethoven write good music ? [this is not a flame] >Pun for the day: > "I'm a sucker for vampire stories." > -- Chuq von Rospach Your incessant regurgitation of old puns makes me upchuq. [this is a flame; for bonus points, decide *who* is being flamed] Tomorrow's lesson: How to tell the difference between being made to look like a fool because someone flames you and being made to look like a fool because someone flames your article. Our special guest lecturer will be Ted Kaldis. [this was a flame] - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language.
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (02/16/90)
Here is how it looks to the rest of us here in net.land: Peter: did not! Trish: did too! Jeff: did not! You did! Trish: Not me! YOU did! Peter: did not! Trish: did too! .... and so on, and so on. Looks like you all are not getting anywhere *fast*. Why not agree to disagree then kiss and make up? -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406 Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
andy@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) (02/16/90)
At the risk of being drawn into a flame war I want no part of, and at the risk of annoying a fellow Texan, I quote from _Webster's New World Dictionary_: vigilantism (n.) the lawless, violent methods, spirit, etc. of vigilantes Page 1584. (Now PLEASE stop flaming each other over something this silly.) --Andrew
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (02/16/90)
In article <11454@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >I hereby declare all my flames, past, pre- >sent and future, to be non-inflammatory. Believe me, you're not the first.... -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com FROM THE FOOL FILE: "Yet another piece of evidence that it's a Communist society which is being presented as good, but which we probably would not want to live in." -- Ken Arromdee on rec.arts.startrek, on the Federation's Red Menace
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (02/17/90)
In article <8:R1Q7Dxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >I think at the very least a reasonable definition for flame >would require that the posting be negative. I'm surprised >that's not understood by all. Not according to the Hacker's Dictionary, which is based, as all should know, on Ancient Files from MIT. The Dictionary Wars continue. -- Jeff
jill@tank.uchicago.edu (jill holly hansen) (02/19/90)
In article <1457@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
:
: Here is how it looks to the rest of us here in net.land:
:
: Peter: did not!
:
: Trish: did too!
:
: Jeff: did not! You did!
:
: Trish: Not me! YOU did!
:
: Peter: did not!
:
: Trish: did too!
:
: .... and so on, and so on.
: Looks like you all are not getting anywhere *fast*. Why not agree to disagree
: then kiss and make up?
:
: --
: John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY)
: sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406
: Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Or perhaps do all this by email so the rest of us don't have
to read it.
--
========================================================================
Jill Hansen | Can you imagine what this world be like
jill@tank.uchicago.edu | if God's operating system were Unix?