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