faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) (07/16/85)
Since I the flow of messages into my mailbox seems to have
stopped, I thought I would post the remainder of the messages
received.
Daniel.
---- Remainder of received messages follows ----
From: seismo!mcvax!enea!kuling!andersa@ihnp4.UUCP (Anders Andersson)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 85 19:12:24 -0200
Organization: The Royal Inst. of Techn., Stockholm
I don't read net.flame (I don't even think it's distributed to Europe, however
we get a lot of it because of the cross-postings everywhere else).
It seems that "net.flame" is used mainly as a pure *attribute* in the list of
newsgroups, and not as a newsgroup itself. I can't see how there could be any
reason to *start* a discussion in net.flame (about what?)! So, people just
add that little string "net.flame" in the header to tell others that they are
angry at something or somebody, when they follow up to a posting in another
("real") newsgroup. Probably they won't remove the original newsgroup(s), as
they are usually convinced that their complaints are at least as fit as the
rubbish they are complaining about. As a result, the usefulness of the Net
diminishes *radically*.
I think it's a very bad idea to start newsgroups to hold a certain *kind* of
articles, such as flames. It's about as appropriate as newsgroups for *long*
articles, or for *indented* ones, or *rotated*, or... Newsgroups should cover
subjects, more or less specialized! It might seem useful in the beginning to
have net.flame for things you don't like, but it won't work in the long run,
as we can see. People can't see what these groups are all about (and that's a
correct observation), and so they go using it as a header attribute instead!
I have about the same experience from other electronic conference systems,
independent of USENET News.
Sometimes you could be lucky with an articles-of-a-kind newsgroup, maybe
net.jokes fall into this category? I don't know, I don't read it either. To
work, its subscribers should preferrably not have keyboardmania! Other such
groups might be net.general, net.followup, net.announce and net.misc. Their
common denominator is that they cover no subject. Strong moderation, either
implemented or "socially imposed" (does that cover net.announce maybe?), seem
to have some effect also.
Net.jokes.d is an indication that net.jokes didn't work as well as expected,
at least.
Another problem is, once these groups are established, they are probably very
difficult to get rid of. Well, net.flame goes everywhere anyway, so nobody,
not even the flamers themselves, would take notice if it was removed (touch
wood)...
You certainly don't get rid of bad manners by piling them up.
Anders Andersson;...!seismo!mcvax!enea!kuling!andersa
----------
From: ihlpg!jeand@ihnp4.UUCP
Date: 8 Jul 85 16:04:55 CDT (Mon)
I think that it [net.flame] would have two main purposes:
1) to provide a forum for heated (not necessarily name-calling, but nasty just
the same) debate on any topic when it gets too hot in the appropriate
newsgroup (a place for the arguers to "duke it out".)
2) to provide a place for people to "dump", like the msg that I read this
morning from a guy who was at a restaurant where a child was being allowed to
rampage. I don't think, as I have seen some suggest, that this sort of stuff
should be sent to /dev/null. If it were true that just "writing it all down"
was sufficient to relieve frustration, then I could write it all down on a
sheet of paper and then shred it. I think it's the idea of communicating to
another human being that gives it any purpose whatsoever.
I think the best proposal that I have yet heard is to keep nut.flame local
(how about an enforced state-wide distribution?) I'm not sure about having it
machine-local, as the user base at a particular machine may be so small as to
cause some problems (how about flaming over the affirmative action, and having
a supervisor who is sensitive on that particular topic?)
AMBAR
----------
From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!sunybcs!colonel@sdcsvax.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 85 11:29:53 edt
As I understand it, net.flame was originally for non-personal criticism:
manufacturers, products, standards, ideas, and so on. The criticism was
typically not corrective and was of interest to users in general. By
convention, writers used language as strong as they liked.
This was a convenient use for net.flame, since it allowed angry users to vent
their feelings. That feature is now the defining characteristic of net.flame.
Writers may attack anything at all, including one another, without regard to
whether the attack will interest the public. There is still no law of libel
in net.flame, and there is no longer a law of courtesy. The old product
criticisms have been absorbed into various appropriate other newsgroups.
----------
From: Andrew Scott Beals <bandy@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 85 15:01:35 pdt
Geographic-Location: Ground Zero, in my office, Livermore CA
Why to flame about anything that you want without people bitching at you
and getting upset and causing your sa (me) hassles...
andy
--
UUCP: {akgua allegra ihnp4 hplabs sdcsvax trwrb cbosgd}!sdcrdcf!faigin
ARPA: sdcrdcf!faigin@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA --or-- sdcrdcf!faigin@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
W: SDC, 2500 Colorado MD 52-46; Santa Monica CA 90406; (213) 820-4111 x6493
H: 11743 Darlington Avenue #9; Los Angeles CA 90049; (213) 826-3357
The views and opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of
my employer, except the janitor who agrees with everything I write. I hope
for his early recovery and release.scott@cstvax.UUCP (Scott Larnach) (11/16/85)
A quick scan across a couple of newsgroups today produced the following: ----- > From somebody > ************************************** > Check fuel. > Set intensity to KILL. > Open FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > ************************************** > All right, so you're not a net-fascist; you're a net-jerk. ----- > From: rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) > Message-ID: <546@pucc-j> > Listen up, mush-for-brains. ----- > From: jrm@wdl1.UUCP > Message-ID: <839@wdl1.UUCP> > I nominate Gene Spafford for net.dictator. Votes of less than 30 caliber > will not be accepted. ----- > From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) > Message-ID: <1316@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> > ******************** FLAME ON: > Well excuuuuse me, you arrogant little twerp. I thought net.sources > ******************** FLAME STILL ON, you little twerp. ----- [ The above is a digest, not an inclusion. It is the first and hopefully the last volume of the ABUSIVE-INSULTS digest ] It seems to me that this little treasure trove is an eloquent enough argument against flames. I suspect most of the people on the net are like me in that they don't want to spend most of their time wading through this kind of abusive and uncivilised crud. "unsubscribe to net.flame" I hear you say. None of this was taken from net.flame. But the influence is unmistakable. It is interesting to note also that at least one of the contributers to this "digest" seems to think that abuse and insult is justified by including the word "flame" in the posting. This is the net.flame mentality which is manifestly *not* being confined to that newsgroup. So this is a vote against flaming. Faced with the above (and not a smiley to be seen - these guys are *serious*) it seems the only way to go. I plead "stamp out flaming before it stamps the net out". And I vote for the removal of net.flame. It is infecting other newsgroups and generally making reading the news a pain. I want to read articles that have informative content, whether it be ideas or facts. Thoughtful *argument* is acceptable, fighting not. You want a fight, take up boxing or join the army. Keep it off the net, please. -- Scott Larnach Janet: scott@uk.ac.ed.cstvax Edinburgh Unix Support Arpa: scott@cstvax.ed.ac.uk Tel: +44 31 667 1081 x2629 Uucp: scott@cstvax.uucp