Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihdev.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv From: rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: know what you can do with your advice, ken? Message-ID: <132@ihdev.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 02:29:07 EST Article-I.D.: ihdev.132 Posted: Mon Dec 10 02:29:07 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 02:38:17 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 215 i already apologize for the length, but, again, this gets pretty steamy towards the end... >kennith almquist my caps, and your gonna' PAY for 'em!! || \/ >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.) i didn't want to be concise. i was having fun. who is "we"?? the rest of the net? a small group of elite flamers?? as for my "talent," (or lack of), i'll get to it that later... >2) Although personal attacks are easy to write, they immediately brand >you as a beginner. you mean like this one of yours? >A good flame will offend a large portion of the net, >not just one person. but i only wanted to attack one person. see, the letter was about jeff sargent, an individual person, and i wanted to dog him in public, so i wrote about HIM, and..... aw forget it. >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. stop it! i'm rolling!! arr-arr-arr. the wit - so keen, so fine, so *sharp*! who writes your stuff?? >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 thanks for the wonderful advice. i'll make sure to leave some typos in this letter for you... ken-baby, i really appreciate the advice. i really do, but what we have here are two different ideas about what a flame should be. when i flame like the JS flame, i basically let the idea roll around in my head (if you listen real close you can hear it rattle) for a few days, then i sit down at the terminal and BOOM, there's the flame. not a lot of time spent on revisions etc. has that kind of "natural" (rough) look. sure, this one was a tad long, but so were some of my others. remember my last "big" flame, introducing all the AI projects? big doesn't mean "lack of talent" lots of people liked that flame, and i got a lot of "fan" mail. and when is the last time YOU put out a good, well received, entertaining flame? you see, flames can also be entertaining to others, too. i think most netters enjoyed the "AI project" flame, and quite a few apparently enjoyed this one. i'm not quite the "beginner" you've made me out to be. just because YOU don't like it (or "we", as you called yourself earlier), doesn't mean other netters don't like it. i'm not saying how this reflects on net-taste, but.... i don't want to stand here and bang my own drum, but i've received about 14 pieces of mail, and most of them had some good things to say. in fact, i'll show you some bits and pieces, with the names removed, of course. they'll be at the end of this already too long article. they should prove my case.... /* here comes the fun part! */ ok, ken, we need to bury the hatchet. if you come out and say: "ron, i was wrong to use the phrase 'we' in my paragraph 1) above. obvsiously from the responses you've shown me at the end of your reply, there were quite a few people (in fact, all who replied to you) who actually did enjoy the flame, even though i didn't. i was a wrong to jump on your case so fast. in fact, i've been fucking up like that all my life. no wonder nobody likes me. god, how long CAN i hide behind this pseudo-intellectual mask? what if OTHER people already know the big words i look up in the dictionary? i'm the flamer on the net. ME!! i work at bell, but did *I* get mentioned in your AI project letter? hell no!! you had to pick on rich rosen, the wimp!!! i can out-flame them all. i'm the BEST. the BEST, you hear me!!! and no young punk like you is going to put out a better flame. you make me sick, vaughn. SICK. i'll flame you till you burn in your chair. i'm the BEST!!!!" jesus H. christ, settle down, ken. look, i guess you don't have to say *all* of that, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY BALLS AT *ALL*, YOU WILL COME OUT HERE ON THE NET AND PUBLICLY ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG IN USING "WE" WHEN MOST PEOPLE ON THE NET WERE EITHER NEUTRAL OR LIKED MY FLAME. (for those of you unfamiliar with net-etiquette, i just took of my skin-tight tan driving gloved and lightly slapped it across ken's face, *slap*slap*. we will now all wait for his reply. his man-hood (net-hood?) is at stake here. he can a) swallow his pride, and admit he was wrong in using "we", especially in light of the overwhelming evidence i'm about to present. in doing so, he will also be admitting that his ideas were his OWN, not the nets, and his whole article really should have been /dev/nulled (or sent to me), or he should have started the letter with "this is my opinion, but..." or b) he really going to shock us all by lightly slapping ME in the face with his skin-tight tan driving glove. how he would accomplish this without making himself look like a grade-A ass is beyond me right now, but i'm such a "beginner", and he wrote the book on flames... god, this is exciting!) enough said. i know sign off, and leave you with excerpts from some of the letters talking about my JS flame i've received over the last few days. *slap*slap*, ron vaughn each letter has been chopped, but no lines touched. yes, i still have all the origs., if you HAVE to see them. (after i get permission from the authors, who i once again thank for their nice replies) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN!! Enjoyed the dissertation on the World According to JS. Wish I could Bestow upon you a Doctorate of Flameology. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Damn! Your recent polemic re JS has just about convinced me to keep subscribing to net.flame. Beautiful. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First of all, I wanted to be one of the first to give you some feedback on your recent flame of the guy. GOOD JOB!!! I got a nice charge out of reading it, and a couple of my co-workers had to stop by my office to see what all the laughter was about. I should probably toast him a bit, too, but how can one follow that kind of opening act? Keep it up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GREAT!!!!! Definitely belongs in the top 10 USENETicles of the year. Thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ron, Definately the most hilarious flame I've read in some time. And I don't even know -- care? -- who Jeff Sargent is! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you. I usually don't read something that long (300 baud) but really enjoyed that. Hope all the thankyou mail doesn't fill all your disks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I haven't been following Sargent at all but I loved your flame. Great writting style, good sense of humor and sarcasim. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very well-written flame. But why pick on Jeff? Maybe he's pretty off-the-wall, but at least he's polite. And he seems so *defenseless*. It's like picking on a cabbage patch doll. /* true, i'll admit - ron */ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bravo! It is now clear to me why the ancient Irish accorded their satirists so much respect. I don't think I've ever seen a JS article, but if they've done no other service, they've caused your flame -- masterful. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nice flame, with elements of truth. But you missed the obvious suggestion for a message: "I'll defend Jeff Sargent's right to remain on the net to the death, but I still want that fucker off the net!" Actually, I feel that people like JS do us a service on the net: they make the rest of us look good while reminding everyone that there REALLY are people out there who believe that sort of shit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /* this is ron again... had to get the last word in B-) */ ok, ken, the ball is in your court. errr, i mean, the glove is on your hand. DO YOU SPEAK FOR SOME SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE NET, OR NOT??? it's that simple. i DEMAND the apology, or your feeble excuses!!! until we meet again..... did he say demand? i think he did!