peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/11/90)
In article <1746@dukeac.UUCP> ggw@dukeac.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: > 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. 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 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. I would like to note, though, that I recently had a look at alt.flame. I must say that most of the stuff in there falls into the "rant" category. I would like to note that someone has brought up another occasion on which I may have been guilty of flaming (or rather, ranting), and that's when Brad started up Clarinet. I apologise to all and to Brad in particular. I still remain apprehensive about Brad's service, but so far he seems to be keeping it under control quite well. -- _--_|\ 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 <3YO1.E5xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Perhaps it should be called a meaner word, like "rant". Golly gee, Beaver, that would really burn 'em up, wouldn't it? Something really mean like that would really force a change around here. > 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. Whatever makes you think that they would use it? Does any flame war ever get moved out of the group it was occuring in and into alt.flame, "Followup-To: alt.flame" header lines and all? No. They never do. At least good net.citizens who accept that they are very much flaming often crosspost to that group so kill files can do their work. A large number of articles that appear in alt.flame are not crossed into any other groups; they recognise that flaming has entertainment value too. Very rarely are these non-crossposted flames really related to some topic that you would expect to see in some regular USENET group. > I would like to note, though, that I recently had a look at > alt.flame. I must say that most of the stuff in there falls into the > "rant" category. So why do you suggest alt.rant? You never mentioned in the article but you're header and the "need a suitable ghetto" line seem to indicate that you think the group should be created. With alt.flame, alt.peeves, alt.stupidity and such all already existing to do the imagined job that you think the new group would perform why do we need to add that to it all too? Because "rant" is such a scathing word? Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet")) "Nice plant. Looks like a table cloth."
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/12/90)
In article <PK8GV=@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > Golly gee, Beaver, that would really burn 'em up, wouldn't it? > Something really mean like that would really force a change around here. Well, it'd at least stop the debate over what is or isn't a flame. > So why do you suggest alt.rant? It's a joke, son. I never explain jokes any more. PS: what's purple and commutes? -- _--_|\ 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) (02/13/90)
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!