🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bvsahl.e4a@wang.com> fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
>c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>
>> As it should be. Any retaliation should achieve several goals:
>>
>> a. make sure the incident (mistake :-)) does not happen again from the 
>>    original site
>
>A simple 1-line note will take care of that.

Which is what I sent; which is what 99% of the people who responded sent.

>> b. make sure that others are discouraged again from trying the same
>>    thing

Usenet has a way with abusers. Most, after seing their name trashed for 
a while, don't repeat it; many others don't start. Some will continue.

>Nothing will do this.  The problem will only ever be repeated by new-
>comers who have never heard of any prior incidents.  You can't discourage
>the people who haven't joined the net yet.

In my 10 years on the net, few abusers are relative newcomers. B1FF, 
Mutlu/Argic/Co., the Abacus guy, etc look seasoned to me. Anyone remember
the 'what time is it?' flame wars in the mid-80's?

>Finally, any approach that uses the word "retaliation" is very misguided.

Aw, c'me on, I was just kidding. If our own president can use football
language during a war, I can use war language on Usenet (great logic :-)).

>For god's sake, people, be a little more mellow.

Soc.culture.* hasn't been mellow for years...

-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]