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