Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cbosgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ka From: ka@cbosgd.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Advice to ron vaughn Message-ID: <559@cbosgd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 16:31:00 EST Article-I.D.: cbosgd.559 Posted: Fri Dec 7 16:31:00 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 05:36:39 EST References: <130@ihdev.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Columbus Lines: 25 > [when's the last time you saw a good flame?? well partner, that's too long!] I am glad to see that that you are concerned about the paucity of real flames in net.flame. Let me make a few suggestions: 1) Be more concise. While we like to encourage aspiring flamers, wading through a 250 line article by an untalented flamer is a little much. (If you already *had* talent, you wouldn't *need* 250 lines to flame somebody.) 2) Although personal attacks are easy to write, they immediately brand you as a beginner. A good flame will offend a large portion of the net, not just one person. If you have trouble coming up with ideas, go to the library and excerpt some of Mussolini's comments on democracy. What do you do with all those brilliant insults that fill your teeming brain? Save them up. Then when somebody has the temerity to write an article defending democracy, you can sprinkle your refutation of their feeble attempts at argument with observations about their intelligence, ancestry, and choice of breakfast cereal. 3) Your defense against typo flamers would have been a good one had your flame not been so feeble that nobody was motivated to criticize your spelling anyway. However, in net.flame the *best* defense is always a good offense. Personally, I always include typos in my flames for the benifit of those who lack the intellegence to flame at anything else. Kenneth Almquist