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