faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) (07/05/85)
[DPF speaking... Although it has only been a couple of weeks since my
request went out, due to the tremendous response I have gotten, I have
decided to summarize whenever my condensed reply file gets to around 300
lines or so.]
Before we can look at what net.flame is for, we must first understand some
basics. According to the USENET documentation, (e.g., the messages posted
by Gene each month), the purposes of net.flame are:
1. For flaming on any topic.
2. Normal standards of courtesy are not observed here.
If we use the definition of "flame" in the Hacker's Dictionary, we would
thus arrive at the following definition for the purpose of net.flame:
1. a place for speaking incessantly and/or rabidly on some reletively
uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude.
The replies that I have received to date have been many and varied. Some
could fall into the above definition. Some are *way* off the mark. It
looks like much of the problem with net.flame is that people do not
understand what it is for.
The summary posted today consists of three parts. This part (I) is a true
summary of the basic points made about the purpose of net.flame. Since
some of them a basically repeats of others, I have only numbers the first
occurrance of semi-unique or significant ones. The next message in the
summary (II) is my personal commentary on the messages received. Lastly,
part III is a condensed and reformatted version of the messages received to
date.
Net.flame is...
1. a place to flame or criticize any topic, statement, or person who
bothers you. These criticisms need not have a basis in logic.
2. a place to let out anger, frustration, hate, and other emotions.
3. a place to rant and rave.
4. a place to try satire, or off the wall ideas, knowing that the readers
won't be too offended if they don't see what you were trying to say.
5. a place for people who feel a need to be abusive or offensive.
6. a place to have pointless arguments that don't belong in a particular
newsgroup.
7. a place to send stuff that would be considered unreasonable in any other
group.
8. a place for bored people to have fun, vent general frustrations, and
generally mess around.
9. a place where angry people get sent from other newsgroups so they can
yell at each other rather than at people who don't like angry people in
other newsgroups.
10. a place to provide articles serving as sparks to start heated
discussions, possibly quite silly, i.e. women's use of toilet paper.
11. a place to allow a no-holds-barred discussion of anything.
12. it is not a place for pre-emptive, abusive, personal attacks, or any
stupid tomfoolery or drivel anyone chooses to post, nor was it designed to
encourage it.
13. a safety valve to keep the rest of the net relatively civil.
14. A place where people play the game of erecting personnas that
they would never use in a real world face to face situation.
Other opinions are...
a place to absorb heated arguments from other groups which have become too
acrimonious or voluminous to stay where they started.
a place serving as a catharsis where people posting articles in this
newsgroup should consider themselves open game for any sort of abuse from
anybody.
a place serving as a source of enjoyment for people such as myself, who
don't post to the group, but sit back and watch the mud slinging across the
screen for a lighthearted break.
a place that has no purpose.
a place for all the uninhibited graffitti that would otherwise be posted
elsewhere.
a place to allow people to vent frustration, anger, and other emotions that
would be inappropriate to other news groups.
an overflow point for arguments.
a place for satirical humor.
a place for messages with whine content.
a place for articles which are complaints, harangues, criticisms, which are
usually more emotional than logical.
it is not a place for written abuse of other netters.
a place for discussions started in other groups to go to when they got too
long, drawn out and noisy, and or became arguments rather than discussions.
a place to vent their rage, e.g., a sort of electronic primal scream
therapy.
To be continued...
Daniel
--
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
Don't have good ideas if you aren't willing to be responsible for them.
-- A. J. Perlis, SIGPLAN 17:9 Sept 1982faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) (07/05/85)
I would now like to present my opinion on some of the points raised: > 1. a place to flame or criticize any topic, statement, or person who > bothers you. These criticisms need not have a basis in logic. This I can see as a useful purpose. The question here is whether these criticisms need to be broadcase worldwide. I personally feel that these criticisms should be sent via private mail. On the other hand, if one has a well-thought out, logically based response to an article in a given newsgroup, then it is up to the discretion of the author to determine if it should be posted. > 2. a place to let out anger, frustration, hate, and other emotions. Valid point. But do we really need to broadcast this hate worldwide. I think there is enough out there as is. This leads directly to an idea of mine: flaming should be allowed, BUT ONLY IN A LOCAL NEWSGROUP. This would eliminate the problem of other sites bearing the cost of an individual's primal scream. > 3. a place to rant and rave. Is there really a need to rant and rave for the sake of ranting and raving. If there must, it can be done locally. I do not feel that it is the duty of the net to be a psychoanalysis service. > 4. a place to try satire, or off the wall ideas, knowing that the readers > won't be too offended if they don't see what you were trying to say. This is definitely not a purpose of net.flame. Satire usually has a target, and it is often very hard to communicate it properly via words alone. If the idea or topic of satire falls within the domain of another newsgroup, post it there. If it doesn't fit, isn't that what net.misc is for. I have never heard a complaint about well written satire. > 5. a place for people who feel a need to be abusive or offensive. People who are abusive and offensive should learn to control themselves, not inflict themselves upon the ENTIRE WORLD. It seems that offensive behaviour is becoming accepted (gee, I feel like Miss Manners) -- which is a tragedy. The world would be much better off if people learned common courtesy, and learned when it is proper to be abusive, and where (pronouced, "in private"). > 6. a place to have pointless arguments that don't belong in a particular > newsgroup. It they are pointless and don't belong in a particular newsgroup, then what are they doing on the net? If they have a point, then the polite discussion, not an argument, should be in net.misc. We would like to think that the people on the net are all professionals, or being trained to be professionals. There is no need for angry argument in professional circles. > 7. a place to send stuff that would be considered unreasonable in any other > group. If it is unreasonable in other groups, what makes it any more reasonable in net.flame. If something is unreasonable or possible offensive, the net has a perfectly acceptable solution -- rotation -- which need not be limited to net.jokes. > 8. a place for bored people to have fun, vent general frustrations, and > generally mess around. For some reason this strikes me as an inappropriate use of the net (yet, I am guilty of doing it). Maybe this definition applies to the entire net, and not just net.flame. > 9. a place where angry people get sent from other newsgroups so they can > yell at each other rather than at people who don't like angry people in > other newsgroups. This is a common opinion. How often does it happen in real life? From what I have seen, these arguments just continue in the newsgroup they started it. Usually, it is just a two way argment, which, if it is serving no purpose, should revert to private mail. > 10. a place to provide articles serving as sparks to start heated > discussions, possibly quite silly, i.e. women's use of toilet paper. Silly discussions belong in net.jokes. Heated discussions of silly subjects are simply profits for the phone company that transmits the drivel. > 11. a place to allow a no-holds-barred discussion of anything. I am not sure whether it is possible to hold a "no holds barred discussion". In practice, people direct there discussions (i.e., not arguments) to newsgroups other than net.flame. > 12. it is not a place for pre-emptive, abusive, personal attacks, or any > stupid tomfoolery or drivel anyone chooses to post, nor was it designed to > encourage it. This I agree with, whether flame is a local, citywide, statewide, worldwide, quadrant-wide, etc. newsgroup. > 13. a safety valve to keep the rest of the net relatively civil. Unfortunatly, it looks like this valve has to go back to the factory for repairs. > 14. A place where people play the game of erecting personnas > that they would never use in a real-world face to face situation. This goes on in all newsgroups, and to a greater extent in net.flame. I've never liked games like this. These are my opinions. In the next message, you will find the opinions of those who have written me. I would like to thank everyone for their responses so far, and I will continue to summarize as new points are raised. Daniel -- 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 Don't have good ideas if you aren't willing to be responsible for them. -- A. J. Perlis, SIGPLAN 17:9 Sept 1982
faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) (07/05/85)
*From: alex@ucla-cs.UUCP (Alex Quilici)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 85 20:16:38 pdt
No exact definition, just some ideas:
a place to flame or criticize any topic, statement, or person who bothers
you with the known risk that they will flame you back.
a place to let out one's anger, one's frustration, and one's hate.
a place to rant and rave
a place to try satire, or off the wall ideas, knowing that the readers
won't be too offended if they don't see what you were trying to say
Obviously there is no real *need* for net.flame. But here is why I think
there should be a net.flame:
People are always going to want to flame about something or other, right?
And if there wasn't net.flame they'd flame in whatever group seemed most
appropriate to the topic. Do you want net.politics cluttered up with
people screaming that they don't like so-and-so's political opinions? I'd
much rather see that stuff go to net.flame.
My points should be looked at from this point of view. Someone has posted
something in one group that gets you annoyed. You should be able to post a
response to net.flame that (1) lets out your anger, (2) criticizes them or
their topic, (3) possibly rants and raves, and (4) makes your point in a
satirical or off the wall way. Chances are there are other people who feel
the same way who will enjoy reading your posting.
I like reading and posting to net.flame. Yes, there are often stupid
worthless postings to that group. Yes, people get offended. (Even I get
offended every once in awhile.) But the occasional hilarious posting makes
it worthwhile. And that, to me anyways, makes the group worth having.
There are an awful lot of readers of net.flame, too, so it is clear that
many people feel the same why I do.
You might want to post something to net.misc asking netters what they like
about net.flame, or if they think it should be kept. I'm curious as to how
others feel about this.
Alex
----------
*From faigin (Daniel P. Faigin) Mon Jul 1 08:42:06 1985
In my opinion, net.flame is for only the points I have indicated with +++:
+++a place to flame or criticize any topic, statement, or person who
+++bothers you with the known risk that they will flame you back.
+++a place to let out one's anger, one's frustration, and one's hate.
+++a place to rant and rave
a place to try satire, or off the wall ideas, knowing that the readers
won't be too offended if they don't see what you were trying to say
Although to me, the first point is debatable. Is it actually necessary
that the person you disagree with see the message. If so, couldn't one
just respond via private mail; is it actually necessary for the whole world
to see it. They could still flame you back, again via private mail.
As for points 2 and 3, there is no apparent need for anger, frustration,
hate, ranting and raving to be distributed world-wide. I think there's
enough in the world as is.
I don't know about 4. Certainly, net.flame is not the right group -- trial
ideas are not flames. Where do they belong? I have no idea. An
appropriate group, or net.misc maybe. Maybe the solution is to create a
net.misc.offensive for these types of messages.
My basic idea is that net.flame should be a local newsgroup used to vent
anger, frustration, etc. If this is not possible, its default distribution
should be local (but overridible). Lastly, flames about particular
articles should be by private mail.
Daniel.
----------
*From: woof@psivax.UUCP (Hal Schloss)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 09:46:55 pdt
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Well I believe that net.flame is a group so that people who feel a need to
be abusive or offensive will have a place to go. There does not seem to be
any reason for net.flame other than those or similar ones, except perhaps
that it helps weed that sort of stuff out of other newsgroups. We will
always have people who want to post things that are most appropriate in
that group, so we need a place for them to post to. As I write this it
also seems to me that net.flame is a place to have pointless arguments that
don't belong in a particular newsgroup. That is arguments where there is
no objective reason that can be used to conclusively prove one side right.
Hal Schloss
(from the Software Lounge at) Pacesetter Systems Inc.
----------
*From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!lkk@sdcsvax.UUCP
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 12:03:33 edt
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
net.flame is for flaming (i.e. unstructured emotional handwaving
arguments). It is the place to send stuff that would be considered
unreasonable in any other group. It is for people who read net news merely
for the sake of reading it, not just for information, and thus want to
increase the amount of news they can read even if it is total trash.
Larry Kolodney
----------
*From: Jim Gillogly <jim@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 14:41:29 pdt
Organization: Banzai Institute
Two purposes, I believe. The first is to absorb heated arguments from
other groups (e.g. net.women) which have become to acrimonious or
voluminous to stay where they started. The second is to provide a place
for bored people to have fun, vent general frustrations, and generally mess
around. I think the first one is useful, and the "vent general
frustrations" part of the second is useful (maybe I gave 4 purposes here.
oh, well.).
BTW, our system administrator trashed net.flame here at randvax last week.
Jim Gillogly;{decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim;jim@rand-unix.arpa
----------
*From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!sunny@sdcsvax.UUCP (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 00:28:17 PDT
net.flame is where angry people get sent from other newsgroups so they can
yell at each other rather than at people who don't like angry people in
other newsgroups.
net.flame is the only newsgroup where there are no rules.
Sunny
----------
*From: bentley!ran@sdcsvax.UUCP (RA Novo)
Date: 3 Jul 85 09:38:36 EDT (Wed)
I have been reading net.flame for a few weeks now, since I became a summer
employee here at Bell Labs, and it seems to me that this newsgroup is quite
a game. It brings to mind the idea of the USENET as a "video game", where
people typing at a terminal get carried away in their abuse of other people
on the net since they don't see these people face to face.
In my opinion, the messages going back and forth seem to be more caustic on
the net than one would see in person, and net.flame should be used as sort
of a catharsis where people posting articles in this newsgroup should
consider themselves open game for any sort of abuse from anybody. However,
this sort of abuse should be restricted to this group alone.
Although I have also seen more legitimate gripes in this group, i.e. the
hostage situation in the Middle East, the new taste of Coke, etc. I
believe that if these articles were posted in other appropriate newsgroups,
and they did not attack other netters personally, they would be accepted in
an appropriate newsgroup. These articles, though, also seem to be sparks
to start heated discussions, and some of these "starter" articles seem to
be quite silly i.e. women's use of toilet paper.
The net.flame group is also a source of enjoyment for people such as
myself, who don't post to the group, but sit back and watch the mud
slinging across the screen for a lighthearted break. I guess in this last
sentence, I can be accused of the "video game" principle that I mentioned
earlier in this letter, but note that in this enjoyment, I do not step in
and take the risk of offending anybody.
I hope that this letter has provided you with a bit of insight of what one
person thinks of net.flame. I am looking forward to see what other people
think in your summary article.
Robert A. Novo;AT&T Bell Laboratories;Piscataway, NJ;bentley!ran
----------
*From: cuae2!heiby@ihnp4.UUCP
Date: 3 Jul 85 11:17:36 CDT (Wed)
Organization: AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL
I don't think net.flame has a purpose, any more.
Ron Heiby;heiby@cuae2.UUCP;AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL;(312)810-6109
----------
*From: twitch!tjt@ihnp4.UUCP
Date: 3 Jul 85 13:58:13 CDT (Wed)
I feel the purpose of net.flame is to serve as a place for all the
uninhibited graffitti that would otherwise be posted elsewhere. It is a
necessary pressure-release. I feel it should remain unchanged, although
administrators should be free (as always) to reject it on a per-machine
basis.
...Tim Thompson...AT&T Bell Labs/Holmdel/NJ...twitch!tjt...
----------
*From: asgb!devine@bmcg.UUCP
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 13:59:29 pdt
The stated goal of net.flame was to allow a no-holds-barred discussion of
anything. However, it has devolved to an uninteresting collection of phone
bill raising nonsense held forth by a handful of people. Net.flame is
often seen as a cross-posting of articles meant for a specific group. It
is superfluous.
All groups that were created on an "open-ended" purpose (e.g., net.flame,
net.general, net.misc) get the odd messages that don't fit in elsewhere.
Bob Devine
----------
*From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbjade!ucbtopaz.ocean@sdcsvax.UUCP
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 09:50:07 pdt
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
In my humble eyes, the purpose of net.flame is to allow people to vent
frustration, anger, and other emotions that would be inappropriate to other
news groups. The net has a major disadvantage over communication in person
in that emotions are much more difficult to express. In many ways, this
newsgroup is abused but I think it is a necessary part of the network, and
acts as a pressure-valve. Without it, it seems that some other groups
would probably disintegrate into namecalling and other activities that
occur in net.flame. For those who don't like what happens in net.flame,
well...if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
A footnote to my feelings on the purpose of net.flame is that we should all
remember that it is a public forum. As such, it is subject to the laws of
the land and we should be relatively sure of our facts before we mouth off.
Interesting question though: If someone wanted to prosecute, would it be
under the slander or libel laws?!
Jon Frisch;University of California;Marine Sciences Group
----------
*From: gwsd!revc@sdcsvax.UUCP
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 15:40:46 pdt
Overflow point for arguments.
Place for satirical humor.
Bob Van Cleef;Gateway Computer Systems;(619) 457-2701;...sdcsvax!gwsd!revc
4980 Carroll Canyon Road;San Diego, CA 92121
----------
*From: <dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!mcnc!duke!phs!paul@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 13:28:51 edt
Let me answer rather "What do I think net.flame should be used for?" To which
the answer is: net.flame should be used for messages, which should not be
cross-posted anywhere else for any reason, with whine content. (Virtually
every case I can think of with a cross-posting used the cross-posting as a
justification for whining with a virulence not appropriate for the "serious"
newsgroup: In which case, the serious message should have gone to the serious
newsgroup and the whine to net.flame.) One may now ask "why should there be a
net.flame?" to which I would reply, "To keep the whining out of the serious
newsgroups." Of course, some of the whining that goes on in net.flame is
ridiculous: "I hate it when men diddle on the toilet seat;" "I hate it when
people stop in highway accesses;" and so on. Such things are obvious. But
better to let them appear in net.flame (alone!) than in net.women, net.auto,
etc. Occasionally net.flame articles are quite funny, and occasionally one
does feel the need to vent one's spleen on various and sundry net nitwits; I'd
thus be sorry to see net.flame disappear. Regards, Paul Dolber.
----------
*From: <tektronix!teklds!setha@hplabs.UUCP>
Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 85 22:39:37 PDT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
A flame is a complaint, an harangue, a criticism, usually more emotional than
logical. Net.flame is a place for articles which are complaints, harangues,
criticisms, which are usually more emotional than logical. But the flames
there should not be simply written abuse of other netters.
--Seth Alford;Tektronix Walker Road;PO Box 4600;MS 92-823;Beaverton OR 97075
tektronix!teklds!setha;(503)-629-1145
----------
*From: mgnetp!ll1!cej@ihnp4.UUCP
Date: 3 Jul 85 21:36:34 CDT (Wed)
The intention was, I believe, for it to be a place for discussions started in
other groups to go to when they got too long, drawn out and noisy, and or
became arguments rather than discussions.
It was not as a forum for pre-emptive, abusive, personal attacks, or any
stupid tom-foolery or drivel anyone chooses to post, nor was it designed to
encourage it.
Llewellyn Jones
----------
*From: uw-beaver!entropy!fetrow@ihnp4.UUCP (David Fetrow)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 18:40:58 pdt
The purpose is a safety valve to keep the rest of the net relatively civil.
We all generate stuff we want seen (so /dev/null is out) but just doesn't fit
anywhere else. In this it serves a useful purpose. <once in a great while
it's fun to read>
-Dave Fetrow
----------
*From: phri!roy@allegra.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 23:30:39 edt
Well, this is an interesting question. My perception of why net.flame exists
is so that people have a place to vent their rage. Sort of electronic primal
screem therapy. This definately does not include the sort of juvinile name-
calling that has been going on lately. It also doesn't include random
uttering of 4-letter words just for the fun of it. Nor does it include being
abusive, obnoxious, or wantonly rude or disruptive.
In a nutshell, I think that net.flame has turned into something that its
originators had not intended. Since I wasn't on the net when net.flame was
started, my conjecture about why it was created is just that; conjecture.
I also think it should be eliminated, but that is sort of orthogonal to the
question you posed. Considering the volume of the stuff on the net, and the
cost in terms of disk space, modem time and phone bills, I think a lot of the
"junk groups" have to be gotten rid of. Net.flame tops my list in this
department. Also, for every article that comes in, there is a finite
(sometimes I wonder if it really *is* finite) chance that something will go
wrong which requires my attention. A disk will get full, the active file will
get corrupted, the history data base will become munged, something. Thus,
cutting the news volume should directly decrease the amount of time I have to
spend hand-feeding this thing we call usenet.
(Roy Smith) System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
----------
*From: <tektronix!hammer.TEK!seifert@hplabs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 19:12:16 PDT
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
The purpose of net.flame is to provide a place for persons (and other animals
capable of typing) a forum for screaming and yelling and suchlike behaviour
which would be unacceptable in the other newsgroups. This keeps the other
newsgroups free of this contamination.
Znoopy
----------
*From: mtgzm!pad@ihnp4.UUCP (p.a.dunkin)
Date: 5 Jul 1985 2:30 EDT
According to "The Hacker's Dictionary" ((C) 1983 by Guy L. Steele, published
by Harper & Row), to flame means to "speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some
relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude."
Thus, net.flame ought to be, by definition, a place for such activity.
If net.flame has any real use, it is as a sink (or perhaps a gutter?) for
compulsive flamers who would otherwise clutter useful newsgroups with their
name-calling, personal attacks, and expletives that *ought* to be deleted
before posting.
Pat Dunkin (...!ihnp4!mtuxo!mtgzm!pad)
----------
*From: hao!woods@hplabs.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 13:44:15 mdt
As I perceived it, the purpose of net.flame was as an "anything goes" forum,
and to prevent other newsgroups from getting swamped with heated flames. The
recent rash of cross-postings would seem to suggest that it is failing in it's
purpose. My opinion now is that, with a certain amount of reluctance, I agree
with Chuq. The net is now too big to let everyone post anything they want
whenever they want. As an example, it is likely that hao will no longer be
able to serve as a backbone site due to rapidly mounting phone bills. I must
agree with Chuq that if we must cut something (and it appears we *must*, for
if hao were to drop off the net, all of Colorado would be cut off unless
someone else could be found to serve as backbone), the cesspool of net.flame
is the least useful and toughest to justify to our bosses.
--Greg
----------
*From: uiucdcs!kaufman@ihnp4.UUCP (Ken Kaufman)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 85 11:01:50 cdt
There are two purposes:
1) To spout off anger on a topic, possibly somewhat irrationally. The anger
may be directed at something external (such as bad drivers) or at something
internal (eg, Alex & Scott). The former was probably the intent of net.flame,
but this is a biased opinion, as I am no fan of arbitrary personal attacks.
2) Many have noticed that net.jokes does not convey the humor that it should.
I submit that net.flame has filled that void, and in doing so, has become the
funniest notesfile on the net. People submit to net.flame things that would
better go in net.misc, and indeed in net.misc.funny if such existed. Witness
the recent discussion on toilet paper as a classic example.
In summary, net.flame is a conduit for the basic human emotions. At the
moment we see anger and humor (with an unhealthy dash of hate thrown in)
dominating. If allowed to continue evolving, it is possible that other
emotions will manifest themselves in net.flame.
Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman)
--
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
Don't have good ideas if you aren't willing to be responsible for them.
-- A. J. Perlis, SIGPLAN 17:9 Sept 1982