marr-leon@CS.YALE.EDU (Leon T. Marr) (09/14/89)
In article <1989Sep6.115246.17066@gec-mi-at.co.uk> clark@gec-mi-at.co.uk (Peter Clark) writes: >In article <18950@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>Alright dipshit, why did you include that stupid row of hyphens when the > ^^^^^^^ >>hyphens to tell the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD that your article (which was > ^^^^^^^ ><deleted> >>covered *SARCASM* yet. After all it didn't have one of those phallic > ^^^^^^^ >>smiley things. > >This I find unneccessary, downright rude, and definately not fit >for public consumption. > >If you *REALY* must use this kind of flame, then send it by private mail, >*NOT* by POST to every *PUBLIC* notice board in the *WORLD*. Hey, this is *alt.flame*! Complaining about profanity in alt.flame is like complaining about violence in American football. Alt.flame was *created* for flames. This is not IMHO, this is in the newsgroup description. (Aside from which, I fail to see what is "downright rude, and definately (sic) not fit for public consumption" in the perfectly harmless English adjective "phallic".) Then, after a couple of volleys have been exchanged, In article <1989Sep11.125116.18148@gec-mi-at.co.uk> clark@gec-mi-at.co.uk (Peter Clark) goes on to say: >The point being, this is a *WORLD*WIDE*PUBLIC*NOTICE*BOARD* Oh really? Then why didn't you move all followups out of news.newusers. questions, and keep them from flooding *two* newsgroups, by sending them to alt.flame, where they belong. Then you could simply have unsubscribed, and anyone who thought this flame war was a waste of bandwidth could have done so also. Besides, no one forces any site to carry alt.flame. Okay? Followups directed to ALT.FLAME. Apologies to news.newusers.questions for this meta-flame. Randomness.