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