Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1+some 2/3/84; site dual.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!dual!hav
From: hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Chris's Major Conniption
Message-ID: <826@dual.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 17:41:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: dual.826
Posted: Fri Oct  5 17:41:54 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 07:18:12 EDT
References: <605@trwspp.UUCP>
Organization: Dual Systems, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 118

<*munch*>

Mister Stassen:

You have flamed my mailbox not once, not twice, but three times.  After the
third time, I mailed back to you indicating that I have been rather busy this
week but that I would respond shortly.  Forget that I said that.  Since you
have seen fit to flame me for the *fourth* time here on the net, I am delighted to respond in like fashion.

=>         You're assuming that I was flaming the net in general
=> for spelling.  First of all, my article WAS spelled and punctuated
=> "impeccably."

No, it wasn't.  If you want details, why don't we carry that on via private
mail.  This over-the-net vendetta business is pretty childish, even for
net.flame:-).  Suffice it to say that I didn't catch any spelling errors, but
your punctuation and usage are a bit rough at the edges.

=>                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.

I agree with the first two sentences.  I cannot speak for you as regards the
intent or target of your flame.  You did, though, make a comment in your
original article to the effect that "most of the netters are trying to carry
on debates about reasonably complex topics . . . " blah, blah, blah, to which
I say THIS IS NET.FLAME.  WE'RE EXEMPT!!!

=> 	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.

The QUOTE (sic) *did* have an error, and I *did* notice the quotation marks.
However, given the mediocre quality of the remainder of the writing in your
article, there was no way I could have known for what reason you included
them.  (I've seen plenty of cases in which people put quotation marks
somewhere thinking that the quotation marks will give added emphasis to what
is being said.)  You also neglected to indicate a credit for the quote, which
again makes me think that you just didn't know the right way to say what you
meant.

=> 	I think you should either give up, think before you post, or
=> (alternatively) go back and reread my original posting until you
=> understand it.

I'll give you a chance to write one more article and reconsider that statement.

=> 	Lastly, there are a lot of accepted standards on the net that
=> has English turning over in its grave.  In what English text would you
=> see valid forms such as:

In what English text did you learn the word "lastly?"  I think you just
*adverbialized* an adverb.  :-)  Besides, who said English is dead?  Then how
can it be turning over in its grave?

=> 	(1) ":-)" as a form of punctuation.

As far as I can tell, punctuation is the written analog to inflection.  Do
you have any better ideas on how to indicate humor or sarcasm?  Perhaps you
would like to screen all net articles for content and then deliver copies to
net people on four continents.  You could use your own flesh-and-blood smiley
face to indicate how something was intended.  :-) !!!

=> 	(2) CAPITALIZATION of whole words for emphasis.
=> 	(3) *this sort of thing* for emphasis.

Got any better ideas?  My poor ASCII terminal is twitching with suspense to
think that it might learn a new way to emphasize.  It's just *sooooooo* tired
of having to deal with CAPITALIZATION and *****asterisks***** all the time.

=> 	I agree.  Why don't you go jump in a lake!  (Included so that
=> this article could be posted in this newsgroup).

Are you always that misanthropic, or is this personally directed?  :-)

=> 				-- Chris

If I may take the liberty of quoting what you sent to me via mail (since
you've already splattered enough of this garbage all over the planet :-) )

=> 	The apostrophe is used to separate the word from its "s."  This
=> is correct usage - often seen in words such as "IC's," and so on.  I have
=> only seen it used when the word to be pluralized is an abbreviation or
=> acronym.  If you're going to be one of the types of people that the author
=> of the original article was flaming about, please be sure to be correct.

I'd be delighted to correct.  This is *incorrect* usage.  For the moment,
take my word for it, but I'll go find a few of my English books while you're
loading your napalm.  The apostrophe may be used (legally) only in
contractions or possessives, e.g., Chris's mind is going to the dogs.  We
can't stop it no matter what we try.  Anyone who refers to multiple
integrated circuits as "IC's" is making a gross error.  Tell 'em *I* said so.

=> 	At any rate, all of the responses to the article have been stating
=> that it is very impolite to take a single article to task for mistakes, 
=> but that writers of articles should check their work for mistakes in order
=> to make it legible.  If you couldn't read the cute little saying at the
=> end of my article (correct though it was), well, ...

=> 				-- Chris

Gosh, I guess I've been hearing from some people with *really* bad manners.
Um, Phil, jj, Henry (I think I may have been your unnamed (forgotten)
literate other), didn't your mommies tell you to mind your manners?  Let's
talk about this.  I think he's right about checking work, at least.  Chris,
did you check your work for mistakes in order to make it legible?  The cute
little saying at the end of your article wasn't even correct . . . a fine way
to close.

This is beginning to feel repetitious.  I've gotta go now, but I'm looking
forward to hearing from you, Chris.

Your friend,

Helen Anne
Subject: Re: hav's major catharsis
References: <605@trwspp.UUCP>