Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!alex
From: alex@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Toilet Paper
Message-ID: <6251@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 17:06:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6251
Posted: Fri Jul  5 17:06:42 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 00:41:44 EDT
References: <921@security.UUCP>
Reply-To: alex@ucla-cs.UUCP (Mud)
Distribution: net
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 30
Summary: One more time...

In article <921@security.UUCP> bet@security.UUCP (Bevette E. Davis) writes
  (in response to a mild flame about her posting a flame that was simply
   someone else's flame followed by "very well put"):
>Oh, come off it FART HEAD, this is net.FLAME!
>Do you have to flame in so many words in order to post?
>Why waste my time writing three paragraphs when three
>words did just as well.

Yes, Bevette, it is net.FLAME, NOT net.AGREE!  Your flame was
completely and totally worthless!  You didn't add anything to
the discussion, weren't interesting, and except for one or two
nurds who just learned to read, I doubt if you amused anyone.
Think about it: "very well put" is hardly a flame.

Of course, I could be wrong, and perhaps a lot of people were
abosultely ecstatic to see 40 lines of other people's flames
followed by your "very well put."  But I doubt it.

If you aren't intelligent or witty enough to write a flame all by
yourself, don't make yourself look even stupider by including what
someone else posted and then agreeing to it.  To summarize in three
words so you can understand:

   BEVETTE, DON'T POST!

>Have a nice day! |-)

You too, babe.

Alex