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