Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-ngp.UTEXAS Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!xavier From: xavier@ut-ngp.UTEXAS ( Xavier) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Removing net.flame Message-ID: <1955@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 21:07:31 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1955 Posted: Tue Jul 2 21:07:31 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 00:43:22 EDT References: <3892@alice.UUCP> <1818@amdcad.UUCP> <6173@ucla-cs.ARPA> Organization: La Universidad de Texas en Osten, Aztlan Lines: 72 From: alex@ucla-cs.UUCP <6173@ucla-cs.ARPA> ] Perhaps you who are net wizards will listen to a few comments from ] one of the dynamic duo from UCLA who seem to have caused this mess: So Alex still thinks he was pretty smart! I guess if one can't get famous, he can try hard to be infamous. ] (1) The followup line changing was stupid, but was well intentioned. ] It was in response to Sophie and Jeanette's double postings to ] net.women and net.flame. I'd figured that they'd see net.auto ] and net.motss if they followed up to the flame and would therefore ] change it and stop double posting. Obviously it didn't work. I ] have apologized (twice now, by the way) and don't think it is to ] likely that it will happen again. Not likely, but possibly, huh? Your immaturity is bound to surface again (once you placate your audience)! Already you've convinced Chuq with your sweet-talking B.S. The reason those two brats sent followups to net.auto and net.motss is because both Scott and Alex had already had a field day with net.auto and both of them have shown their hate/fear of the gay community. ] (2) In calling someone an abuser you really have to judge the context ] of their messages, as well as the content. A posting to net.general ] critizing someone's sexual habits is quite possibly slander and is ] certainly abusive. However, when the same posting is done in net.flame ] ... How many net.flame users really take the insulting and name calling ] seriously? Upon seeing the responses to their insults on Sophie and Jeanette one could clearly see that most were not laughing with them and the majority were quite upset at the language they used. Who told them that they could put whatever they wanted on net.flame, their proctologist? ] Our personal mail (srt and I) is well ] in favor of our postings (and there have even been people who ] thought changing the followup lines was great) so there a many ] people who like them (as hard as that may be for you to believe). I bet that Scott and Alex have plenty of followers (enough to start a new sect). Those two have been working together for some time, first doing a number on net.auto and then on net.women & net.flame. ] (4) Finally, show some restraint. How many of you bothered to check with ] us before ranting and raving about how abusive our postings are? Who's telling whom to show restraint! I'm sure all those who were angered by those brats saw their brilliance on net.women/net.flame. Why should anyone "check" with them when they try to humiliate others? I guess the analogy to Alex's statement could be "check with the rapist, before the victim and eye-witnesses". ] Many of you were pretty ] quick to judge a whole institution on one or two postings to net.flame. ] Our postings to other groups are useful contributions to the net. Actually more than a couple of postings to net.flame & net.women. Other people, not Scott or Alex, have made "useful" contributions. ] net.flame is supposed to be used for venting frustration and anger,... ] Don't critize those who are using net.flame for its intended purpose. I believe there was something in net.announce.newuser about net ettiquete. If Scott or Alex need to vent their frustrations and anger they have each other since they know each other VERY well. Is that the reason they dislike net.motss?