Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site iham1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!iham1!cbd From: cbd@iham1.UUCP (Carl Deitrick) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: CMU studies flames on networks Message-ID: <229@iham1.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 11:25:27 EDT Article-I.D.: iham1.229 Posted: Fri Oct 5 11:25:27 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 05:26:19 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 13 I think there is another reason why flames are so prevalent on the network: Contributors are not talking to a person, they're talking to a *machine*. Intellectually, they must know their articles are read by real people, but when they type the article in, they're talking to a *machine*. They can rant, rave, curse, use sharp language, be judgemental, boorish, sarcastic or whatever else they want and THE MACHINE DOESN'T CARE! If they tried the same thing with a real person, they'd have their lights punched out. Talking to the computer like that has great therapeutic effect, and I do it all the time. I just never post it to the net. The only question of substance here is why scientists want to study such obvious subjects. They must be social scientists. :-) Carl Deitrick iham1!cbd