gam@amdahl.UUCP (09/15/87)
I've always enjoyed the old net.flame and also felt it served a valuable purpose both as a catharsis and also to see what's on people's minds. And the ``flame'' part means that it's a free-for-all, however you choose to express yourself. I'll be generating a few flames myself in the near future. -- Gordon A. Moffett gam@amdahl.amdahl.com ~ Let us break these bonds assunder! ~ ~ Let us cast these yokes away from us! ~
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (09/15/87)
In article <14297@amdahl.amdahl.com> gam@amdahl.amdahl.com (Gordon A. Moffett) writes: |I've always enjoyed the old net.flame and also felt it |served a valuable purpose both as a catharsis and also ... Next we'll have alt.bizarre. Why have two groups for people to "express themselves freely?" This is not a flame, an honest question. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
billw@killer.UUCP (09/17/87)
<7366@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, William E. Davidsen Jr: >> I've always enjoyed the old net.flame and also felt it >> served a valuable purpose both as a catharsis and also ... > Next we'll have alt.bizarre. Why have two groups for people to "express > themselves freely?" This is not a flame, an honest question. Firstly, there is already a talk.bizarre. Duplication is not really necessary. Also, "express themselves freely" is a very broad phrase. One can express oneself freely via bizarre activity; this goes in talk.bizarre. For others, free expression might entail a more angry posting. Guess where THOSE go? -- Bill Wisner ..ihnp4!killer!billw "An it harms none, do what thou will." Everything in this message may be wrong.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (09/17/87)
In article <7366@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <14297@amdahl.amdahl.com> gam@amdahl.amdahl.com (Gordon A. Moffett) writes: >|I've always enjoyed the old net.flame and also felt it >|served a valuable purpose both as a catharsis and also >... >Next we'll have alt.bizarre. Why have two groups for people to "express >themselves freely?" This is not a flame, an honest question. net.flame had a lot of history behind it and was ruefully missed when The Authorities removed it. I honestly claim that it serves a useful purpose in network communications, for example by presenting hot (truly hot!) issues that the People which to rail about. See how the Pope's visit to SF is being received, for example. I have no interest in creating an alt.bizarre and I hope we never see such a thing. If someone wants to create it I hope they can convince me that it is worth carrying, as I might not want to. But likewise, sites that don't want to carry alt.flame don't have to, either. -- Gordon A. Moffett gam@amdahl.amdahl.com ~ Let us break these bonds assunder! ~ ~ Let us cast these yokes away from us! ~
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/20/87)
> net.flame had a lot of history behind it and was ruefully missed > when The Authorities removed it. I honestly claim that it serves > a useful purpose in network communications, for example by presenting > hot (truly hot!) issues that the People which to rail about. I would claim that it would be just as useful as a local group, never transmitted over pay-per-minute long-haul links. The alt newsgroups are looking less like an alternative and more like the Same Old Shit every day. I've already started unsubscribing. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry