cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (07/13/85)
[Jeff Lichtman]: >I meant "sanction", not "condone". The point of my article was that there is >a message contained in the mere existence of net.flame: that irresponsibility >is OK on USENET. Net.flame sanctions (gives official approval of) bad manners >and behavior. I believe this is true even if it is not the intended effect. When Jeff says "net.flame sanctions", I believe he is thinking of the body of postings and especially certain posters to that group as the meaning of "the existence of net.flame". I didn't notice before that we may have been talking about different things. When I say "net.flame condones", I am thinking of a description of the purpose and proper attitude towards the group (which does not necessarily coincide with the current use of it). I don't know whether and where such a definition is kept; I was giving my view of it. If an *official* description of net.flame says that various forms of irresponsibility are *good* and *encouraged* ("gives official approval of" == sanctioned) rather than just tolerated ("is OK" == condoned) then I suggest that the definition needs to be changed! I hope we are all in agreement here. >Why did you assume that I chose the wrong word ... imply that I am illiterate? Jeff, I apologize for the implication and for assuming you were making a mistaken word choice. The reasons were that (a) it is a common mistake, (b) the word "condone" was used by your debating "partner" (so to speak) Chuq, and (c) as I indicated above, I think I misinterpreted your argument, leading me to think you *must* have meant "condone". >Is this another example of the bad manners >learned in net.flame being carried into other newsgroups? Bad manners, yes -- I apologize. Learned in net.flame, I don't think so. (I was born with a teeny little nasty streak.) I don't think it works as Jeff and Chuq say it does -- with the NOTED exception of cross-postings from net.flame. Any effect of people learning to be rude in net.flame and carrying it to other groups is surely outweighed by the benefit of containing most of the flames there. Consider the analogy of net.flame to a prison. Truly, some people who have done time in prison learn how to be nastier crooks afterwards than before they went in (their point); but aren't we better off for having a place to put them much of the time (my point)? Ok, we don't imprison people in net.flame, but you get the idea. For the most part, flamers go there voluntarily. Taking it away wouldn't eliminate the flamers. It *would* create the necessity of constantly and eternally flaming at people for being flamers. I don't want to see the net in that state again -- it's been there before. Mistakes I can tolerate, but not well-meaning mistakes, Charles Poirier (decvax, ucbvax, ihnp4)!vax135!cjp