ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (02/07/90)
In article <34044@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> goldfarb@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) writes: > In article <90031.152743YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> YZKCU@CUNYVM (Yaakov Kayman) writes: > )yet one more home for flameage. Alt.flame exists solely for that purpose. > )Why not use it for all flames for or against homosexuality as well? > > Because you can't get the people to move the discussion there. Maybe > a specialized group will work better in that regard. (Maybe I'm fooling > myself.) As a veteran of five years with the net, I can state with some conviction: Yes, you are fooling yourself. This is not intended as a flame. This is why alt.flame was created and it would be nice if it worked this way, but it exists, and net.flame existed before, and we still have the traveling {homosexual,rape,religion,you-name-it} flame war. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel