Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot From: chabot@amber.DEC (L S Chabot) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Copyright violations: Prose guidelines. Message-ID: <4015@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Oct-84 12:06:36 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.4015 Posted: Fri Oct 26 12:06:36 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Oct-84 05:48:54 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 25 Scott (decvax!genrad!teddy!slf) == > > With all the postings about spelling being posted for the last 4 weeks, > do we realy need more? ^ Why yes!___| :-) Well, actually, just kidding. But anyway, perhaps we should have a little informative discussion about net.flame. Grammar discussions are vital to the continued existence of net.flame. This is a little known fact, but it's time for it to come out and become public gnawlledge. Without the semiannual firestorms about grammar, we would of course have the problem that net.flame would become all but indistinguishable from net.politics, and then someone would want to delete it. Big deal, you say? Okay, then what about the less frequently occurring cinemax flames (which would then end up annoying people in net.jokes) and trucker flames (-> net.stonehenge.wombats). But this is really quite irrelevant to the true need the net has of net.flame: it is vital to national defense security. Yes, that's right, CCCI messages are actually secretly hidden in many of the flames adamantly travelling right now back and forth across the blissful country of ours. (Just check out some of those parity bits!) And you don't think people would actually misspell, and mispunktuate, so badly, as this do, you?! Without, there being some actual real urgent necessary need. Not to mention bad grammar. Sentence fragments? Message fragments? These are all