Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site machaids.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!cca!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!hocda!machaids!pxs
From: pxs@machaids.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Fighting fire with fire
Message-ID: <355@machaids.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Jun-83 16:23:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: machaids.355
Posted: Sat Jun  4 16:23:57 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jun-83 21:22:50 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel
Lines: 171


	This flame is about flames.

	Now don't get me wrong.  No one enjoys a good flame more than I;
but some forms of flame have appeared so often that they are no longer
"news-worthy".
	One particularly bad example of this is the Wrong Newsgroup Flame,
in which the valiant author seeks to save the entire Net from the heinous
abuse of someone's posting an article to net.abc instead of net.def.
There are actually six different flavors of this flame, each as silly as
the last...


Stupid Flame 1:
	"Item x, which was posted to net.abc, should have been posted to
net.def."

Stupid Flame 2:
	"Item x, which was posted to net.abc, should have been posted to
net.abc.x."

Stupid Flame 3:
	"Item x, which was posted to net.abc, is the third article on
topic x in the past five weeks.  Won't somebody create net.abc.x so that
I don't have to be bothered with any more x-talk?"

Comments:

	1 - On a QWERTYUIOP keyboard, the 'n' key is over the space bar,
between the 'b' and 'm' keys.  Just thought you'd like to know...
	2 - If you must complain, try *mail*.  Yes, I *know* that some
sites don't forward mail, but you don't know that mail won't work unless
you try it.  If the path over which the original item came won't carry
a reply, try another route.
	If you are truly isolated from the offender's machine, *and*
you still feel the need to vent some spleen, why not use net.flame?
That's what it's here for... Yes, I know, it's unlikely that the offender
reads net.flame; but maybe, just maybe, if you posted an item to net.flame
saying, "I tried to mail this flame to person P on machine M, but I have
no mail link to that machine,"  someone who *has* a mail link to machine M
might be impressed by your intelligence and consideration and mail
a copy of your flame to person P.  That way, you can mend the ways of
net abusers without becoming one yourself...
	Also, if you're particularly far away from the offender, net-wise,
you might consider waiting a bit before flaming.  What bothers me more than
the inappropriately vituperative tone of the Wrong Newsgroup Flame is the
fact that each alleged infraction seems to generate many different flames,
all saying the same thing... If those who were far away from the offender
waited a bit, they might catch a follow-up message from a closer machine
and decide that a further flame would be superfluous...


*************

Stupid Flame 4:
	"Item x was posted to net.general.  Items posted to net.general should
be of interest to everyone; since *I* wasn't interested in item x, it clearly
did not belong in net.general."

	1 - For every item in net.general over which there is *any* question
at all as to whether the item belongs in net.general, I see about FIVE of this
type of flame --- *all* in net.general!  (Of course, since flames are not
appropriate material for net.general, each such flame generates five flames
of its own; and so on, and so on...)
	2 - General interest does NOT mean *universal* interest.  There's no
such thing as universal interest.  No matter how intelligent and considerate
net users become(don't hold your breath), there will always be articles posted
to net.general which don't interest you, or with which you don't agree.  (I
would tell you where the 'DELETE' key is, but that depends on the model of
your terminal.  I'm not quite *that* patronizing, anyway...)

*******

Stupid Flame 5:
	"Item x, which was posted in net.misc, was not miscellaneous enough
for net.misc."

	Don't laugh, folks, I've seen this one twice.
	Yes, I agree that if item x is clearly about subject abc, it probably
belongs in net.abc, if net.abc exists.  However:
	1 - If (as a non-net.abc reader) I am presumed to have no interest
in item x, I'm *certainly* not interested in FLAMES about item x...
(Am I repeating myself?  Am I repeating myself?...)
	2 - The author may not be sure whether the item belongs in net.abc
or net.def, and is being CONSIDERATE to both newsgroups by trying out item x
in net.misc first;
	3 - The author may think item x is of more general interest and is
being CONSIDERATE to net.general by not submitting it immediately to
net.general;
	4 - The author may not know of the existence of net.abc;
	5 - In any case, just as net.general is not restricted to articles
of universal interest(there *being* no articles of universal interest),
net.misc cannot be restricted to articles about nothing.  Every article
is about something.  No, no, DON'T send me your favorite counter-example...
Even the articles that *say* nothing are about something.  Even the articles
without useful Subject lines are about something.  (You can adopt this
response.  Or you can turn the page.)

Side note 1:
	I fully expect to see someone, complaining about a test message
in net.misc, say, "C'mon, let's keep this kind of garbage in net.general,
where it belongs..."

Side note 2: (just to show how the "wrong" newsgroup is sometimes the
		*right* newsgroup)...
	Speaking of boots, I thought I'd point out how calmly the Affirmative
Action/racism discussion in net.flame is going.  (So far!)  It's an issue which
arouses great passion on all its many sides, but net.flame people seem to be
able to debate intelligently *and* express deeply felt emotions at the same
time.  This compares very favorably with the rather sorry spectacle of back-
biting which takes place regularly in net.politics, and the "beat 'em, bust 'em,
burn 'em" free-for-all in net.religion to which the Spanish Inquisition itself
would provide comic relief.  ("Well, I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inqui-
sition."  POOF!  Enter three men in red uniforms.  "NOBODY expects the Spanish
Inquisition.  Our chief weapon is surprise...")
	It may be that net.flamers, by regularly venting their spleen, have
become more well-adjusted than the average netter.  (No difficult feat that.)
Perhaps net.flamers can more readily distinguish between spleen-venting and
personal attack(having seen so many examples of each).  In any case:
	1 - Keep up the good work!
	2 - Don't be in any particular hurry to move the discussion to
		net.politics.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..."
***

There should be a smooth segue into Stupid Flame 6, but I can't think of it, so:

Stupid Flame 6:

	"Item x submitted to net.abc challenges my basic assumptions about abc.
Therefore, item x is really not about abc, and should not have been posted to
net.abc."  (Examples of items sparking this sort of stupid-flame are articles
about marriage in net.singles and (of course) articles about atheism in
net.religion.)
	Though this form of flame masquerades as a procedural complaint, it
really reduces to "I disagree with x.  Why should I have to read it?"  Not
to belabor an obvious point, but if everyone's ideas were the same, there'd
be no need to communicate them.  (If you feel there isn't any, fix your 'n' key
and your 'DELETE' key and go the hell away... Aw, what am I doing, preaching
to the converted...)
	Next thing you know, they'll be chasing the C-haters from net.lang.c,
and the LISP-haters from net.lang.lisp...
	(Hmmm..., could be interesting,..."Hey, if you don't like C, whaddaya
doin' usin' UNIX?  Hunh?  Answer me that, you COBOL-cretin!"  "Aw, your
mother uses machine language, you FORTRAN-fiend!"... On the other hand,
maybe I shouldn't have said anything...)

****

Oh well, I've gone on long enough,

				"Sing rickety-tickety-tin",

				Peter Squires, ihnp4!machaids!pxs

P.S. I was also going to flame about flames of the form "Site X forwards news
but not mail.  How DARE they!", but I think I'll just leave you with this
excerpt from Fiddler on the Roof:

	Nahum (the beggar): Tevye, do you think you could help out a poor,
				old beggar...

	Tevye: Certainly, certainly...(Hands Nahum a kopeck.)

	Nahum: *One* kopeck?  Last week, you gave me *two* kopecks!

	Tevye: This week I had a bad week.

	Nahum: So, *you* had a bad week.  Why should *I* suffer...?

P.P.S Have a nice day