Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!trwrb!sdcrdcf!faigin From: faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Purpose Of Net.Flame (III of III) Message-ID: <2117@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 16:48:29 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2117 Posted: Fri Jul 5 16:48:29 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 05:29:37 EDT Reply-To: faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica Lines: 423 Summary: Condensed Replies received so far. *From: alex@ucla-cs.UUCP (Alex Quilici) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 85 20:16:38 pdt No exact definition, just some ideas: a place to flame or criticize any topic, statement, or person who bothers you with the known risk that they will flame you back. a place to let out one's anger, one's frustration, and one's hate. a place to rant and rave a place to try satire, or off the wall ideas, knowing that the readers won't be too offended if they don't see what you were trying to say Obviously there is no real *need* for net.flame. But here is why I think there should be a net.flame: People are always going to want to flame about something or other, right? And if there wasn't net.flame they'd flame in whatever group seemed most appropriate to the topic. Do you want net.politics cluttered up with people screaming that they don't like so-and-so's political opinions? I'd much rather see that stuff go to net.flame. My points should be looked at from this point of view. Someone has posted something in one group that gets you annoyed. You should be able to post a response to net.flame that (1) lets out your anger, (2) criticizes them or their topic, (3) possibly rants and raves, and (4) makes your point in a satirical or off the wall way. Chances are there are other people who feel the same way who will enjoy reading your posting. I like reading and posting to net.flame. Yes, there are often stupid worthless postings to that group. Yes, people get offended. (Even I get offended every once in awhile.) But the occasional hilarious posting makes it worthwhile. And that, to me anyways, makes the group worth having. There are an awful lot of readers of net.flame, too, so it is clear that many people feel the same why I do. You might want to post something to net.misc asking netters what they like about net.flame, or if they think it should be kept. I'm curious as to how others feel about this. Alex ---------- *From faigin (Daniel P. Faigin) Mon Jul 1 08:42:06 1985 In my opinion, net.flame is for only the points I have indicated with +++: +++a place to flame or criticize any topic, statement, or person who +++bothers you with the known risk that they will flame you back. +++a place to let out one's anger, one's frustration, and one's hate. +++a place to rant and rave a place to try satire, or off the wall ideas, knowing that the readers won't be too offended if they don't see what you were trying to say Although to me, the first point is debatable. Is it actually necessary that the person you disagree with see the message. If so, couldn't one just respond via private mail; is it actually necessary for the whole world to see it. They could still flame you back, again via private mail. As for points 2 and 3, there is no apparent need for anger, frustration, hate, ranting and raving to be distributed world-wide. I think there's enough in the world as is. I don't know about 4. Certainly, net.flame is not the right group -- trial ideas are not flames. Where do they belong? I have no idea. An appropriate group, or net.misc maybe. Maybe the solution is to create a net.misc.offensive for these types of messages. My basic idea is that net.flame should be a local newsgroup used to vent anger, frustration, etc. If this is not possible, its default distribution should be local (but overridible). Lastly, flames about particular articles should be by private mail. Daniel. ---------- *From: woof@psivax.UUCP (Hal Schloss) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 09:46:55 pdt Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Well I believe that net.flame is a group so that people who feel a need to be abusive or offensive will have a place to go. There does not seem to be any reason for net.flame other than those or similar ones, except perhaps that it helps weed that sort of stuff out of other newsgroups. We will always have people who want to post things that are most appropriate in that group, so we need a place for them to post to. As I write this it also seems to me that net.flame is a place to have pointless arguments that don't belong in a particular newsgroup. That is arguments where there is no objective reason that can be used to conclusively prove one side right. Hal Schloss (from the Software Lounge at) Pacesetter Systems Inc. ---------- *From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!lkk@sdcsvax.UUCP Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 12:03:33 edt Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass. net.flame is for flaming (i.e. unstructured emotional handwaving arguments). It is the place to send stuff that would be considered unreasonable in any other group. It is for people who read net news merely for the sake of reading it, not just for information, and thus want to increase the amount of news they can read even if it is total trash. Larry Kolodney ---------- *From: Jim GilloglyDate: Tue, 2 Jul 85 14:41:29 pdt Organization: Banzai Institute Two purposes, I believe. The first is to absorb heated arguments from other groups (e.g. net.women) which have become to acrimonious or voluminous to stay where they started. The second is to provide a place for bored people to have fun, vent general frustrations, and generally mess around. I think the first one is useful, and the "vent general frustrations" part of the second is useful (maybe I gave 4 purposes here. oh, well.). BTW, our system administrator trashed net.flame here at randvax last week. Jim Gillogly;{decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim;jim@rand-unix.arpa ---------- *From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!sunny@sdcsvax.UUCP (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 00:28:17 PDT net.flame is where angry people get sent from other newsgroups so they can yell at each other rather than at people who don't like angry people in other newsgroups. net.flame is the only newsgroup where there are no rules. Sunny ---------- *From: bentley!ran@sdcsvax.UUCP (RA Novo) Date: 3 Jul 85 09:38:36 EDT (Wed) I have been reading net.flame for a few weeks now, since I became a summer employee here at Bell Labs, and it seems to me that this newsgroup is quite a game. It brings to mind the idea of the USENET as a "video game", where people typing at a terminal get carried away in their abuse of other people on the net since they don't see these people face to face. In my opinion, the messages going back and forth seem to be more caustic on the net than one would see in person, and net.flame should be used as sort of a catharsis where people posting articles in this newsgroup should consider themselves open game for any sort of abuse from anybody. However, this sort of abuse should be restricted to this group alone. Although I have also seen more legitimate gripes in this group, i.e. the hostage situation in the Middle East, the new taste of Coke, etc. I believe that if these articles were posted in other appropriate newsgroups, and they did not attack other netters personally, they would be accepted in an appropriate newsgroup. These articles, though, also seem to be sparks to start heated discussions, and some of these "starter" articles seem to be quite silly i.e. women's use of toilet paper. The net.flame group is also a source of enjoyment for people such as myself, who don't post to the group, but sit back and watch the mud slinging across the screen for a lighthearted break. I guess in this last sentence, I can be accused of the "video game" principle that I mentioned earlier in this letter, but note that in this enjoyment, I do not step in and take the risk of offending anybody. I hope that this letter has provided you with a bit of insight of what one person thinks of net.flame. I am looking forward to see what other people think in your summary article. Robert A. Novo;AT&T Bell Laboratories;Piscataway, NJ;bentley!ran ---------- *From: cuae2!heiby@ihnp4.UUCP Date: 3 Jul 85 11:17:36 CDT (Wed) Organization: AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL I don't think net.flame has a purpose, any more. Ron Heiby;heiby@cuae2.UUCP;AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL;(312)810-6109 ---------- *From: twitch!tjt@ihnp4.UUCP Date: 3 Jul 85 13:58:13 CDT (Wed) I feel the purpose of net.flame is to serve as a place for all the uninhibited graffitti that would otherwise be posted elsewhere. It is a necessary pressure-release. I feel it should remain unchanged, although administrators should be free (as always) to reject it on a per-machine basis. ...Tim Thompson...AT&T Bell Labs/Holmdel/NJ...twitch!tjt... ---------- *From: asgb!devine@bmcg.UUCP Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 13:59:29 pdt The stated goal of net.flame was to allow a no-holds-barred discussion of anything. However, it has devolved to an uninteresting collection of phone bill raising nonsense held forth by a handful of people. Net.flame is often seen as a cross-posting of articles meant for a specific group. It is superfluous. All groups that were created on an "open-ended" purpose (e.g., net.flame, net.general, net.misc) get the odd messages that don't fit in elsewhere. Bob Devine ---------- *From: dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbjade!ucbtopaz.ocean@sdcsvax.UUCP Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 09:50:07 pdt Organization: University of California, Berkeley In my humble eyes, the purpose of net.flame is to allow people to vent frustration, anger, and other emotions that would be inappropriate to other news groups. The net has a major disadvantage over communication in person in that emotions are much more difficult to express. In many ways, this newsgroup is abused but I think it is a necessary part of the network, and acts as a pressure-valve. Without it, it seems that some other groups would probably disintegrate into namecalling and other activities that occur in net.flame. For those who don't like what happens in net.flame, well...if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. A footnote to my feelings on the purpose of net.flame is that we should all remember that it is a public forum. As such, it is subject to the laws of the land and we should be relatively sure of our facts before we mouth off. Interesting question though: If someone wanted to prosecute, would it be under the slander or libel laws?! Jon Frisch;University of California;Marine Sciences Group ---------- *From: gwsd!revc@sdcsvax.UUCP Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 15:40:46 pdt Overflow point for arguments. Place for satirical humor. Bob Van Cleef;Gateway Computer Systems;(619) 457-2701;...sdcsvax!gwsd!revc 4980 Carroll Canyon Road;San Diego, CA 92121 ---------- *From: Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 13:28:51 edt Let me answer rather "What do I think net.flame should be used for?" To which the answer is: net.flame should be used for messages, which should not be cross-posted anywhere else for any reason, with whine content. (Virtually every case I can think of with a cross-posting used the cross-posting as a justification for whining with a virulence not appropriate for the "serious" newsgroup: In which case, the serious message should have gone to the serious newsgroup and the whine to net.flame.) One may now ask "why should there be a net.flame?" to which I would reply, "To keep the whining out of the serious newsgroups." Of course, some of the whining that goes on in net.flame is ridiculous: "I hate it when men diddle on the toilet seat;" "I hate it when people stop in highway accesses;" and so on. Such things are obvious. But better to let them appear in net.flame (alone!) than in net.women, net.auto, etc. Occasionally net.flame articles are quite funny, and occasionally one does feel the need to vent one's spleen on various and sundry net nitwits; I'd thus be sorry to see net.flame disappear. Regards, Paul Dolber. ---------- *From: Date: Wednesday, 3 Jul 85 22:39:37 PDT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. A flame is a complaint, an harangue, a criticism, usually more emotional than logical. Net.flame is a place for articles which are complaints, harangues, criticisms, which are usually more emotional than logical. But the flames there should not be simply written abuse of other netters. --Seth Alford;Tektronix Walker Road;PO Box 4600;MS 92-823;Beaverton OR 97075 tektronix!teklds!setha;(503)-629-1145 ---------- *From: mgnetp!ll1!cej@ihnp4.UUCP Date: 3 Jul 85 21:36:34 CDT (Wed) The intention was, I believe, for it to be a place for discussions started in other groups to go to when they got too long, drawn out and noisy, and or became arguments rather than discussions. It was not as a forum for pre-emptive, abusive, personal attacks, or any stupid tom-foolery or drivel anyone chooses to post, nor was it designed to encourage it. Llewellyn Jones ---------- *From: uw-beaver!entropy!fetrow@ihnp4.UUCP (David Fetrow) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 18:40:58 pdt The purpose is a safety valve to keep the rest of the net relatively civil. We all generate stuff we want seen (so /dev/null is out) but just doesn't fit anywhere else. In this it serves a useful purpose. -Dave Fetrow ---------- *From: phri!roy@allegra.UUCP (Roy Smith) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 23:30:39 edt Well, this is an interesting question. My perception of why net.flame exists is so that people have a place to vent their rage. Sort of electronic primal screem therapy. This definately does not include the sort of juvinile name- calling that has been going on lately. It also doesn't include random uttering of 4-letter words just for the fun of it. Nor does it include being abusive, obnoxious, or wantonly rude or disruptive. In a nutshell, I think that net.flame has turned into something that its originators had not intended. Since I wasn't on the net when net.flame was started, my conjecture about why it was created is just that; conjecture. I also think it should be eliminated, but that is sort of orthogonal to the question you posed. Considering the volume of the stuff on the net, and the cost in terms of disk space, modem time and phone bills, I think a lot of the "junk groups" have to be gotten rid of. Net.flame tops my list in this department. Also, for every article that comes in, there is a finite (sometimes I wonder if it really *is* finite) chance that something will go wrong which requires my attention. A disk will get full, the active file will get corrupted, the history data base will become munged, something. Thus, cutting the news volume should directly decrease the amount of time I have to spend hand-feeding this thing we call usenet. (Roy Smith) System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute ---------- *From: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 19:12:16 PDT Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm The purpose of net.flame is to provide a place for persons (and other animals capable of typing) a forum for screaming and yelling and suchlike behaviour which would be unacceptable in the other newsgroups. This keeps the other newsgroups free of this contamination. Znoopy ---------- *From: mtgzm!pad@ihnp4.UUCP (p.a.dunkin) Date: 5 Jul 1985 2:30 EDT According to "The Hacker's Dictionary" ((C) 1983 by Guy L. Steele, published by Harper & Row), to flame means to "speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude." Thus, net.flame ought to be, by definition, a place for such activity. If net.flame has any real use, it is as a sink (or perhaps a gutter?) for compulsive flamers who would otherwise clutter useful newsgroups with their name-calling, personal attacks, and expletives that *ought* to be deleted before posting. Pat Dunkin (...!ihnp4!mtuxo!mtgzm!pad) ---------- *From: hao!woods@hplabs.UUCP (Greg Woods) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 13:44:15 mdt As I perceived it, the purpose of net.flame was as an "anything goes" forum, and to prevent other newsgroups from getting swamped with heated flames. The recent rash of cross-postings would seem to suggest that it is failing in it's purpose. My opinion now is that, with a certain amount of reluctance, I agree with Chuq. The net is now too big to let everyone post anything they want whenever they want. As an example, it is likely that hao will no longer be able to serve as a backbone site due to rapidly mounting phone bills. I must agree with Chuq that if we must cut something (and it appears we *must*, for if hao were to drop off the net, all of Colorado would be cut off unless someone else could be found to serve as backbone), the cesspool of net.flame is the least useful and toughest to justify to our bosses. --Greg ---------- *From: uiucdcs!kaufman@ihnp4.UUCP (Ken Kaufman) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 85 11:01:50 cdt There are two purposes: 1) To spout off anger on a topic, possibly somewhat irrationally. The anger may be directed at something external (such as bad drivers) or at something internal (eg, Alex & Scott). The former was probably the intent of net.flame, but this is a biased opinion, as I am no fan of arbitrary personal attacks. 2) Many have noticed that net.jokes does not convey the humor that it should. I submit that net.flame has filled that void, and in doing so, has become the funniest notesfile on the net. People submit to net.flame things that would better go in net.misc, and indeed in net.misc.funny if such existed. Witness the recent discussion on toilet paper as a classic example. In summary, net.flame is a conduit for the basic human emotions. At the moment we see anger and humor (with an unhealthy dash of hate thrown in) dominating. If allowed to continue evolving, it is possible that other emotions will manifest themselves in net.flame. Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman) -- UUCP: {akgua allegra ihnp4 hplabs sdcsvax trwrb cbosgd}!sdcrdcf!faigin ARPA: sdcrdcf!faigin@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA --or-- sdcrdcf!faigin@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU W: SDC, 2500 Colorado MD 52-46; Santa Monica CA 90406; (213) 820-4111 x6493 H: 11743 Darlington Avenue #9; Los Angeles CA 90049; (213) 826-3357 Don't have good ideas if you aren't willing to be responsible for them. -- A. J. Perlis, SIGPLAN 17:9 Sept 1982