Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site trwspp.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!stassen From: stassen@trwspp.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: hav's major catharsis Message-ID: <607@trwspp.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Oct-84 13:46:38 EDT Article-I.D.: trwspp.607 Posted: Thu Oct 4 13:46:38 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 06:47:28 EDT Organization: T R W, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 51 From stassen Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site trwspp.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site trwspp.UUCP Path: trwspp!stassen From: stassen@trwspp.UUCP (Christian W. Stassen) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: hav's major catharsis Message-ID: <605@trwspp.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Oct-84 10:24:36 PDT Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 10:24:36 PDT Organization: T R W, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 36 [] > HEY!!! Whaddya mean, find something better to do? If someone is going to > flame the net for lousy (make that crummy; lousy is getting to be over-used) > grammar and/or punctuation, doesn't it seem reasonable that his or her (yes, > I read my mail) flame should be grammatically correct, and that *everything* > contained therein should be impeccably spelled? No? Well, you can always > unsubscribe, or "n" over the article, or go jump in the lake. :-) You're assuming that I was flaming the net in general for spelling. First of all, my article WAS spelled and punctuated "impeccably." The important part of the article is the "body." The funny quote at the end is pretty meaningless (as usual...:-)). In addition, I was flaming at one person in particular who had decided that the English language wasn't a very good standard to follow. The QUOTE may have had an error. Had you been a good English major, you would have noticed the quotation marks ("). The quotation marks mean that the item enclosed is not original material. I think you should either give up, think before you post, or (alternatively) go back and reread my original posting until you understand it. Lastly, there are a lot of accepted standards on the net that have English turning over in its grave. In what English text would you see valid forms such as: (1) ":-)" as a form of punctuation. (2) CAPITALIZATION of whole words for emphasis. (3) *this sort of thing* for emphasis. I agree. Why don't you go jump in a lake! (Included so that this article could be posted in this newsgroup). -- Chris