Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!jeff From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Save net.flame! Message-ID: <548@rtech.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 03:47:42 EDT Article-I.D.: rtech.548 Posted: Thu Jul 11 03:47:42 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 10:31:44 EDT References: <1119@vax135.UUCP> Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA Lines: 27 > > [Jeff Lichtman]: > > >..[net.flame] sanctions bad manners and behavior. > > Illiteracy promotes sloppy thinking. Look, there is a difference > between the words "sanction" and "condone". (Thanks, Chuq, for using > the right term.) Please post to net.philosophy if you think there is no > difference. Net.flame does NOT sanction (approve of) bad manners and > behavior. It DOES condone (forgive) bad manners and behavior... I meant "sanction", not "condone". The point of my article was that there is a message contained in the mere existence of net.flame: that irresponsibility is OK on USENET. Net.flame sanctions (gives official approval of) bad manners and behavior. I believe this is true even if it is not the intended effect. I didn't mean "condone" because it doesn't make sense for the existence of net.flame to forgive the behavior it approves of. Why did you assume that I chose the wrong word for what I wanted to say, and imply that I am illiterate? Is this another example of the bad manners learned in net.flame being carried into other newsgroups? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff