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 (III of III)
Message-ID: <2117@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 16:48:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2117
Posted: Fri Jul  5 16:48:29 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 05:29:37 EDT
Reply-To: faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin)
Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica
Lines: 423
Summary: Condensed Replies received so far.

*From: alex@ucla-cs.UUCP (Alex Quilici)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 85 20:16:38 pdt

No exact definition, just some ideas:

a place to flame or criticize any topic, statement, or person  who  bothers
you with the known risk that they will flame you back.

a place to let out one's anger, one's frustration, and one's hate.

a place to rant and rave

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

Obviously there is no real *need* for net.flame.  But here is why  I  think
there should be a net.flame:

People are always going to want to flame about something or  other,  right?
And  if  there  wasn't net.flame they'd flame in whatever group seemed most
appropriate to the topic.  Do  you  want  net.politics  cluttered  up  with
people  screaming that they don't like so-and-so's political opinions?  I'd
much rather see that stuff go to net.flame.

My points should be looked at from this point of view.  Someone has  posted
something in one group that gets you annoyed.  You should be able to post a
response to net.flame that (1) lets out your anger, (2) criticizes them  or
their  topic,  (3)  possibly rants and raves, and (4) makes your point in a
satirical or off the wall way.  Chances are there are other people who feel
the same way who will enjoy reading your posting.

I like reading and posting  to  net.flame.  Yes,  there  are  often  stupid
worthless  postings  to  that group.  Yes, people get offended. (Even I get
offended every once in awhile.) But the occasional hilarious posting  makes
it  worthwhile.  And  that,  to  me  anyways, makes the group worth having.
There are an awful lot of readers of net.flame, too, so it  is  clear  that
many people feel the same why I do.

You might want to post something to net.misc asking netters what they  like
about net.flame, or if they think it should be kept.  I'm curious as to how
others feel about this.

Alex
----------

*From faigin (Daniel P. Faigin) Mon Jul  1 08:42:06 1985

In my opinion, net.flame is for only the points I have indicated with +++:

+++a place to flame or criticize any topic, statement, or person who
+++bothers you with the known risk that they will flame you back.
	
+++a place to let out one's anger, one's frustration, and one's hate.
	
+++a place to rant and rave
	
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

Although to me, the first point is  debatable.  Is  it  actually  necessary
that  the  person  you  disagree with see the message.  If so, couldn't one
just respond via private mail; is it actually necessary for the whole world
to see it.  They could still flame you back, again via private mail.

As for points 2 and 3, there is no apparent need  for  anger,  frustration,
hate,  ranting  and  raving  to be distributed world-wide.  I think there's
enough in the world as is.

I don't know about 4.  Certainly, net.flame is not the right group -- trial
ideas  are  not  flames.   Where  do  they  belong?  I  have  no  idea.  An
appropriate group, or net.misc maybe.  Maybe the solution is  to  create  a
net.misc.offensive for these types of messages.

My basic idea is that net.flame should be a local newsgroup  used  to  vent
anger, frustration, etc.  If this is not possible, its default distribution
should  be  local  (but  overridible).   Lastly,  flames  about  particular
articles should be by private mail.

Daniel.
----------

*From: woof@psivax.UUCP (Hal Schloss)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 09:46:55 pdt
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA

Well I believe that net.flame is a group so that people who feel a need  to
be abusive or offensive will have a place to go.  There does not seem to be
any reason for net.flame other than those or similar ones,  except  perhaps
that  it  helps  weed  that sort of stuff out of other newsgroups.  We will
always have people who want to post things that  are  most  appropriate  in
that  group,  so  we  need a place for them to post to.  As I write this it
also seems to me that net.flame is a place to have pointless arguments that
don't  belong  in a particular newsgroup.  That is arguments where there is
no objective reason that can be used to conclusively prove one side right.

Hal Schloss
(from the Software Lounge at) Pacesetter Systems Inc.

----------
*From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!lkk@sdcsvax.UUCP
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 12:03:33 edt
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.

net.flame  is  for  flaming   (i.e.   unstructured   emotional   handwaving
arguments).  It  is  the  place  to  send  stuff  that  would be considered
unreasonable in any other group.  It is for people who read net news merely
for  the  sake  of  reading  it, not just for information, and thus want to
increase the amount of news they can read even if it is total trash.

Larry Kolodney
----------

*From: Jim Gillogly 
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 14:41:29 pdt
Organization: Banzai Institute

Two purposes, I believe.  The first is  to  absorb  heated  arguments  from
other   groups  (e.g.  net.women)  which  have  become  to  acrimonious  or
voluminous to stay where they started.  The second is to  provide  a  place
for bored people to have fun, vent general frustrations, and generally mess
around.   I  think  the  first  one  is  useful,  and  the  "vent   general
frustrations"  part  of the second is useful (maybe I gave 4 purposes here.
oh, well.).

BTW, our system administrator trashed net.flame here at randvax last week.

Jim Gillogly;{decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim;jim@rand-unix.arpa

----------

*From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!sunny@sdcsvax.UUCP (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 00:28:17 PDT

net.flame is 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.

net.flame is the only newsgroup where there are no rules.

Sunny

----------

*From: bentley!ran@sdcsvax.UUCP (RA Novo)
Date: 3 Jul 85 09:38:36 EDT (Wed)

I have been reading net.flame for a few weeks now, since I became a  summer
employee here at Bell Labs, and it seems to me that this newsgroup is quite
a game.  It brings to mind the idea of the USENET as a "video game",  where
people typing at a terminal get carried away in their abuse of other people
on the net since they don't see these people face to face.

In my opinion, the messages going back and forth seem to be more caustic on
the  net than one would see in person, and net.flame should be used as sort
of a catharsis where people  posting  articles  in  this  newsgroup  should
consider themselves open game for any sort of abuse from anybody.  However,
this sort of abuse should be restricted to this group alone.

Although I have also seen more legitimate gripes in this  group,  i.e.  the
hostage  situation  in  the  Middle  East,  the  new taste of Coke, etc.  I
believe that if these articles were posted in other appropriate newsgroups,
and they did not attack other netters personally, they would be accepted in
an appropriate newsgroup.  These articles, though, also seem to  be  sparks
to  start  heated discussions, and some of these "starter" articles seem to
be quite silly i.e. women's use of toilet paper.

The net.flame group is also a  source  of  enjoyment  for  people  such  as
myself,  who  don't  post  to  the  group,  but  sit back and watch the mud
slinging across the screen for a lighthearted break.  I guess in this  last
sentence,  I  can be accused of the "video game" principle that I mentioned
earlier in this letter, but note that in this enjoyment, I do not  step  in
and take the risk of offending anybody.

I hope that this letter has provided you with a bit of insight of what  one
person  thinks of net.flame.  I am looking forward to see what other people
think in your summary article.

Robert A. Novo;AT&T Bell Laboratories;Piscataway, NJ;bentley!ran 

----------
*From: cuae2!heiby@ihnp4.UUCP
Date: 3 Jul 85 11:17:36 CDT (Wed)
Organization: AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL

I don't think net.flame has a purpose, any more.

Ron Heiby;heiby@cuae2.UUCP;AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL;(312)810-6109

----------
*From: twitch!tjt@ihnp4.UUCP
Date: 3 Jul 85 13:58:13 CDT (Wed)

I feel the purpose of net.flame  is  to  serve  as  a  place  for  all  the
uninhibited  graffitti  that  would otherwise be posted elsewhere.  It is a
necessary pressure-release.  I feel it should  remain  unchanged,  although
administrators  should  be  free  (as always) to reject it on a per-machine
basis.

...Tim Thompson...AT&T Bell Labs/Holmdel/NJ...twitch!tjt...

----------

*From: asgb!devine@bmcg.UUCP
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 13:59:29 pdt

The stated goal of net.flame was to allow a no-holds-barred  discussion  of
anything.  However, it has devolved to an uninteresting collection of phone
bill raising nonsense held forth by  a  handful  of  people.  Net.flame  is
often  seen  as a cross-posting of articles meant for a specific group.  It
is superfluous.

All groups that were created on an "open-ended" purpose  (e.g.,  net.flame,
net.general, net.misc) get the odd messages that don't fit in elsewhere.

Bob Devine

----------

*From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbjade!ucbtopaz.ocean@sdcsvax.UUCP
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 09:50:07 pdt
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In my humble eyes, the purpose of net.flame is  to  allow  people  to  vent
frustration, anger, and other emotions that would be inappropriate to other
news groups.  The net has a major disadvantage over communication in person
in  that  emotions  are much more difficult to express.  In many ways, this
newsgroup is abused but I think it is a necessary part of the network,  and
acts  as  a  pressure-valve.  Without  it,  it seems that some other groups
would probably disintegrate into  namecalling  and  other  activities  that
occur  in  net.flame.  For  those who don't like what happens in net.flame,
well...if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

A footnote to my feelings on the purpose of net.flame is that we should all
remember  that it is a public forum.  As such, it is subject to the laws of
the land and we should be relatively sure of our facts before we mouth off.
Interesting  question  though:  If someone wanted to prosecute, would it be
under the slander or libel laws?!

Jon Frisch;University of California;Marine Sciences Group

----------
*From: gwsd!revc@sdcsvax.UUCP
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 15:40:46 pdt
Overflow point for arguments.

Place for satirical humor.

Bob Van Cleef;Gateway Computer Systems;(619) 457-2701;...sdcsvax!gwsd!revc 
4980 Carroll Canyon Road;San Diego, CA 92121
----------

*From: 
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 13:28:51 edt

Let me answer rather "What do I think net.flame should be used for?" To  which
the  answer  is:  net.flame  should  be used for messages, which should not be
cross-posted anywhere else for any  reason,  with  whine  content.  (Virtually
every  case  I  can  think of with a cross-posting used the cross-posting as a
justification for whining with a virulence not appropriate for  the  "serious"
newsgroup:  In which case, the serious message should have gone to the serious
newsgroup and the whine to net.flame.) One may now ask "why should there be  a
net.flame?"  to  which  I would reply, "To keep the whining out of the serious
newsgroups." Of course, some of the whining  that  goes  on  in  net.flame  is
ridiculous:  "I  hate  it when men diddle on the toilet seat;" "I hate it when
people stop in highway accesses;" and so on.  Such  things  are  obvious.  But
better  to  let them appear in net.flame (alone!) than in net.women, net.auto,
etc.  Occasionally net.flame articles are quite funny,  and  occasionally  one
does feel the need to vent one's spleen on various and sundry net nitwits; I'd
thus be sorry to see net.flame disappear.  Regards, Paul Dolber.

----------

*From: 
Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 85 22:39:37 PDT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.

A flame is a complaint, an harangue, a criticism, usually more emotional  than
logical.  Net.flame  is  a place for articles which are complaints, harangues,
criticisms, which are usually more emotional  than  logical.  But  the  flames
there should not be simply written abuse of other netters.

--Seth Alford;Tektronix Walker Road;PO Box 4600;MS 92-823;Beaverton OR 97075
tektronix!teklds!setha;(503)-629-1145

----------

*From: mgnetp!ll1!cej@ihnp4.UUCP
Date: 3 Jul 85 21:36:34 CDT (Wed)

The intention was, I believe, for it to be a place for discussions started  in
other  groups  to  go  to  when they got too long, drawn out and noisy, and or
became arguments rather than discussions.

It was not as a forum for  pre-emptive,  abusive,  personal  attacks,  or  any
stupid  tom-foolery  or  drivel anyone chooses to post, nor was it designed to
encourage it.

Llewellyn Jones

----------

*From: uw-beaver!entropy!fetrow@ihnp4.UUCP (David Fetrow)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 18:40:58 pdt

The purpose is a safety valve to keep the rest of the  net  relatively  civil.
We  all generate stuff we want seen (so /dev/null is out) but just doesn't fit
anywhere else.  In this it serves a useful purpose. 

 -Dave Fetrow

----------

*From: phri!roy@allegra.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 23:30:39 edt

Well, this is an interesting question.  My perception of why net.flame  exists
is  so that people have a place to vent their rage.  Sort of electronic primal
screem therapy.  This definately does not include the sort of  juvinile  name-
calling  that  has  been  going  on  lately.  It  also  doesn't include random
uttering of 4-letter words just for the fun of it.  Nor does it include  being
abusive, obnoxious, or wantonly rude or disruptive.

In a nutshell, I think that net.flame  has  turned  into  something  that  its
originators  had  not  intended.  Since I wasn't on the net when net.flame was
started, my conjecture about why it was created is just that; conjecture.

I also think it should be eliminated, but that is sort of  orthogonal  to  the
question  you  posed.  Considering the volume of the stuff on the net, and the
cost in terms of disk space, modem time and phone bills, I think a lot of  the
"junk  groups"  have  to  be  gotten  rid  of.  Net.flame tops my list in this
department.  Also, for  every  article  that  comes  in,  there  is  a  finite
(sometimes  I  wonder  if it really *is* finite) chance that something will go
wrong which requires my attention.  A disk will get full, the active file will
get  corrupted,  the  history  data base will become munged, something.  Thus,
cutting the news volume should directly decrease the amount of time I have  to
spend hand-feeding this thing we call usenet.

(Roy Smith) System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute

----------

*From: 
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 19:12:16 PDT
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm

The purpose of net.flame is to provide a place for persons (and other  animals
capable  of  typing)  a forum for screaming and yelling and suchlike behaviour
which would be unacceptable in the other  newsgroups.  This  keeps  the  other
newsgroups free of this contamination.

Znoopy

----------

*From: mtgzm!pad@ihnp4.UUCP (p.a.dunkin)
Date:        5 Jul 1985   2:30 EDT

According to "The Hacker's Dictionary" ((C) 1983 by Guy L.  Steele,  published
by  Harper & Row), to flame means to "speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some
relatively uninteresting subject or  with  a  patently  ridiculous  attitude."
Thus, net.flame ought to be, by definition, a place for such activity.

If net.flame has any real use, it is as a sink  (or  perhaps  a  gutter?)  for
compulsive  flamers  who  would otherwise clutter useful newsgroups with their
name-calling, personal attacks, and expletives  that  *ought*  to  be  deleted
before posting.

Pat Dunkin (...!ihnp4!mtuxo!mtgzm!pad)

----------

*From: hao!woods@hplabs.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 13:44:15 mdt

As I perceived it, the purpose of net.flame was as an "anything  goes"  forum,
and  to prevent other newsgroups from getting swamped with heated flames.  The
recent rash of cross-postings would seem to suggest that it is failing in it's
purpose.  My opinion now is that, with a certain amount of reluctance, I agree
with Chuq.  The net is now too big to let everyone  post  anything  they  want
whenever  they  want.  As  an example, it is likely that hao will no longer be
able to serve as a backbone site due to rapidly mounting phone bills.  I  must
agree  with  Chuq that if we must cut something (and it appears we *must*, for
if hao were to drop off the net, all of  Colorado  would  be  cut  off  unless
someone  else  could be found to serve as backbone), the cesspool of net.flame
is the least useful and toughest to justify to our bosses.

--Greg

----------

*From: uiucdcs!kaufman@ihnp4.UUCP (Ken Kaufman)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 85 11:01:50 cdt

There are two purposes:

1) To spout off anger on a topic, possibly somewhat  irrationally.  The  anger
may  be  directed  at something external (such as bad drivers) or at something
internal (eg, Alex & Scott).  The former was probably the intent of net.flame,
but this is a biased opinion, as I am no fan of arbitrary personal attacks.

2) Many have noticed that net.jokes does not convey the humor that it  should.
I  submit that net.flame has filled that void, and in doing so, has become the
funniest notesfile on the net.  People submit to net.flame things  that  would
better  go in net.misc, and indeed in net.misc.funny if such existed.  Witness
the recent discussion on toilet paper as a classic example.

In summary, net.flame is a conduit  for  the  basic  human  emotions.  At  the
moment  we  see  anger  and  humor  (with an unhealthy dash of hate thrown in)
dominating.  If allowed to  continue  evolving,  it  is  possible  that  other
emotions will manifest themselves in net.flame.

Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman)

-- 
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