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."