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..."
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/08/90)
In article <11352@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > We call this net.vigilanteeism. I've asked Jeff about it twice Trish, you're so silly. The Committee of Vigilance disbanded decades before I was born, and operated half a continent away. What would I know about how they would have posted? Jeff PS - The word is vigilantism. -- Thank you for not coercing.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/11/90)
In article <GTL1JS8xds8@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. "Vigilantism" is not a word. Secondly, "vigilanteeism" refers to the behavior/attitudes of some- one who is a vigilante, ie, someone who shares your belief that netters have the right to flame each other another around the net in an effort, as you put it: To alert those who might be unfamiliar with the flamee as to the flamee's unsavory motives, which might cast an idea that would otherwise look innocent in a more realistic light. [...] Were he to make a suggestion, in a more-widely distributed group, that seemed innocuous, but which 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. --Jeff Daiell <K:E1U34xds8@ficc.uu.net> Jeff, what makes you think a) that you are qualified to judge any- one's character or motives about something that does not directly concern you; b) that people never change; or c) that anything will be solved by you chasing someone else around the net in an effort to "alert" other netters about past slights and insults?
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/11/90)
In article <11406@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In article <GTL1JS8xds8@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? The Committee of Vigilance, which operated in San Francisco last century, because the local government refused to act against a gang called the Hounds (the Hounds not only were involved in the usual dishonesty, but also persecuted the city's Mexican-American minority). Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.