🚀 go-pugleaf

I am trying to correct misinformation spread on the net.
This is not a flame.  This is a public message.

In article <1989Jun15.023616.2641@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
> In article <726@lilink.UUCP> mikej@lilink.UUCP (Michael R. Johnston) writes:
> : C'mon Bill, can't you MAIL this to him? Must we all read this?
> 
> The obscenity of someone displaying their cesspool of a mind while
> having the gall to flame another on wholly specious and libelous
> grounds is a sufficient reason to flame that someone.

There is no such thing as "sufficient reason to flame" where a flame
is a message posted to the net.  If you feel it is required, MAIL the
flame.  There is no reason that others should have to see a flame.
If you absolutely must flame, because you feel that you cannot control
yourself, please, at least control yourself enough to keep it out of
news.admin, or any information newsgroup.  Flames are in no way information.
They don't belong in the news, or comp heirarchies.  Someone somewhere,
feeling that flame postings are inevitable created a group called alt.flame.
That is the only place on the net that welcomes flames.

> Mere obscenity is hardly an adequate reply, but it is the most that
> may be done on the net.

Obscenity may or may not be an adequate reply, but if "done on the net"
means posting, please consider that it does offend people on the net
who had no association with the initial issue.  I am not overly offended
by obscenities, but I know many who are.  Please don't post them.

Please don't followup without reading what follows.

-- 
Some related comments here.
1) I have, on different occasions, sided with and against Brad.  I know
     him personally, but unlike others, judge the deeds, not the person.
     This article could be about any topic, its relationship to Brad's
     posting is irrelevant.  I'm not taking sides in the dispute in this
     article.

2) It is a sad day for the net when I find myself posting an article to
    news.admin, "a newsgroup for discussion of topics relating to
    administration of news" (quotation is more or less accurate), when
    the topic is completely covered in news.announce.newusers.

3) I have directed followups to news.admin.  This is meant for those
    who would like to discuss the topic of what is appropriate for
    postings, which actually is a news.admin issue. Please remember
     that the issue has previously been discussed at length, and hardly
    deserves more net bandwidth, but that is probably an opinion call.

4) For those who feel like flaming me, by mail only please, it is
    important to note that the gateway into Japan is not fully
    bi-directional.  Replies to this address will not reach me.
    I can be reached at the addresses listed in my .signature.

5) These opinions are derived, mainly from the articles in
    news.announce.newusers and from personal experience.

6) By posting these comments, I am not making any statements on behalf
    of my employer.  Nor am I a spokesman for those who run the net, as
    there are no such people.
-- 
Ted Timar
tmatimar@watmath{,.waterloo.{edu,cdn,cs.net},.uwaterloo.ca,.uucp}
uunet!watmath!tmatimar		uunet!hamlet!ted