Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!trwrb!sdcrdcf!faigin From: faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Purpose of Net.Flame (Summary - II of III) Message-ID: <2116@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 16:46:48 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2116 Posted: Fri Jul 5 16:46:48 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 05:29:14 EDT Reply-To: faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica Lines: 123 Summary: My response to the major points raised in part I I would now like to present my opinion on some of the points raised: > 1. a place to flame or criticize any topic, statement, or person who > bothers you. These criticisms need not have a basis in logic. This I can see as a useful purpose. The question here is whether these criticisms need to be broadcase worldwide. I personally feel that these criticisms should be sent via private mail. On the other hand, if one has a well-thought out, logically based response to an article in a given newsgroup, then it is up to the discretion of the author to determine if it should be posted. > 2. a place to let out anger, frustration, hate, and other emotions. Valid point. But do we really need to broadcast this hate worldwide. I think there is enough out there as is. This leads directly to an idea of mine: flaming should be allowed, BUT ONLY IN A LOCAL NEWSGROUP. This would eliminate the problem of other sites bearing the cost of an individual's primal scream. > 3. a place to rant and rave. Is there really a need to rant and rave for the sake of ranting and raving. If there must, it can be done locally. I do not feel that it is the duty of the net to be a psychoanalysis service. > 4. a place to try satire, or off the wall ideas, knowing that the readers > won't be too offended if they don't see what you were trying to say. This is definitely not a purpose of net.flame. Satire usually has a target, and it is often very hard to communicate it properly via words alone. If the idea or topic of satire falls within the domain of another newsgroup, post it there. If it doesn't fit, isn't that what net.misc is for. I have never heard a complaint about well written satire. > 5. a place for people who feel a need to be abusive or offensive. People who are abusive and offensive should learn to control themselves, not inflict themselves upon the ENTIRE WORLD. It seems that offensive behaviour is becoming accepted (gee, I feel like Miss Manners) -- which is a tragedy. The world would be much better off if people learned common courtesy, and learned when it is proper to be abusive, and where (pronouced, "in private"). > 6. a place to have pointless arguments that don't belong in a particular > newsgroup. It they are pointless and don't belong in a particular newsgroup, then what are they doing on the net? If they have a point, then the polite discussion, not an argument, should be in net.misc. We would like to think that the people on the net are all professionals, or being trained to be professionals. There is no need for angry argument in professional circles. > 7. a place to send stuff that would be considered unreasonable in any other > group. If it is unreasonable in other groups, what makes it any more reasonable in net.flame. If something is unreasonable or possible offensive, the net has a perfectly acceptable solution -- rotation -- which need not be limited to net.jokes. > 8. a place for bored people to have fun, vent general frustrations, and > generally mess around. For some reason this strikes me as an inappropriate use of the net (yet, I am guilty of doing it). Maybe this definition applies to the entire net, and not just net.flame. > 9. a place where angry people get sent from other newsgroups so they can > yell at each other rather than at people who don't like angry people in > other newsgroups. This is a common opinion. How often does it happen in real life? From what I have seen, these arguments just continue in the newsgroup they started it. Usually, it is just a two way argment, which, if it is serving no purpose, should revert to private mail. > 10. a place to provide articles serving as sparks to start heated > discussions, possibly quite silly, i.e. women's use of toilet paper. Silly discussions belong in net.jokes. Heated discussions of silly subjects are simply profits for the phone company that transmits the drivel. > 11. a place to allow a no-holds-barred discussion of anything. I am not sure whether it is possible to hold a "no holds barred discussion". In practice, people direct there discussions (i.e., not arguments) to newsgroups other than net.flame. > 12. it is not a place for pre-emptive, abusive, personal attacks, or any > stupid tomfoolery or drivel anyone chooses to post, nor was it designed to > encourage it. This I agree with, whether flame is a local, citywide, statewide, worldwide, quadrant-wide, etc. newsgroup. > 13. a safety valve to keep the rest of the net relatively civil. Unfortunatly, it looks like this valve has to go back to the factory for repairs. > 14. A place where people play the game of erecting personnas > that they would never use in a real-world face to face situation. This goes on in all newsgroups, and to a greater extent in net.flame. I've never liked games like this. These are my opinions. In the next message, you will find the opinions of those who have written me. I would like to thank everyone for their responses so far, and I will continue to summarize as new points are raised. Daniel -- UUCP: {akgua allegra ihnp4 hplabs sdcsvax trwrb cbosgd}!sdcrdcf!faigin ARPA: sdcrdcf!faigin@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA --or-- sdcrdcf!faigin@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU W: SDC, 2500 Colorado MD 52-46; Santa Monica CA 90406; (213) 820-4111 x6493 H: 11743 Darlington Avenue #9; Los Angeles CA 90049; (213) 826-3357 Don't have good ideas if you aren't willing to be responsible for them. -- A. J. Perlis, SIGPLAN 17:9 Sept 1982