Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!amd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn From: rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: Removing net.flame Message-ID: <2578@randvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 16:54:12 EDT Article-I.D.: randvax.2578 Posted: Mon Jul 1 16:54:12 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 10:41:52 EDT References: <3892@alice.UUCP> <1818@amdcad.UUCP> <6179@ucla-cs.ARPA> Reply-To: rohn@rand-unix.UUCP (Lauri Rohn) Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 25 Xref: watmath net.news:3579 net.news.group:3226 In article <6179@ucla-cs.ARPA> das@ucla-cs.UUCP (David Smallberg) writes: >[Broadening my reply to issues others have brought up:] >About nuking net.flame: It currently serves as an escape valve; if a >discussion in another group gets too heated, the flamer is told to (if s/he >hasn't already done so) take it to net.flame. > ... >If net.flame is nuked, a massive re-education project would have to be >undertaken to inform everyone that flaming is NEVER acceptable net behavior. >I think it would fail, since different people draw the line at different >points (when does a political argument with a little bit of name-calling turn >into a flame?). I think David has made an excellent point. This would be my main objection to removing net.flame. While I personally feel that the group is about as worthwhile as an electric candle snuffer, it does serve a purpose. It sometimes seems that there are people who can't respond to an article without flaming, and net.flame gives them somewhere to do it so the rest of us don't have to read it. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."