Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site neuro1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!neuro1!sob
From: sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: An observation and a question
Message-ID: <646@neuro1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 3-Nov-85 15:37:41 EST
Article-I.D.: neuro1.646
Posted: Sun Nov  3 15:37:41 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 09:41:11 EST
References: <546@moncol.UUCP> <623@k.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber)
Organization: Neurophysiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Lines: 18

In article <623@k.cs.cmu.edu> mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes:
>(People will still flame in the other newsgroups, but net.flame only
>promotes the idea that flaming is OK and even encouraged.)

I disagree with this assertion. I believe net.flame is for those people
who do not wish to make rational arguments, but argue for the sake of
argument. I believe that having such a newsgroup is not condoning the
idea, but an acknowledgement that there are such people using USENET
and that it is better to have them do it in their own group than do
it elsewhere. If there were no people who argue just to argue on USENET,
net.flame would have no purpose.



-- 
Stan		uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob     Opinions expressed
Olan		ARPA:sob@rice.arpa		       here are ONLY mine &
Barber		CIS:71565,623   BBS:(713)660-9262      noone else's.