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.