🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <66.25cd4ad7@waikato.ac.nz> ccc_simon@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia) writes:
>In article <K:E1U34xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
>>     ...a knowledge of the individual might well make look less savory, it
>>     would be perfectly legitimate to post a flame as that that individual's
>>     character and motives.
>In other words, give the person no chance to change, persecute them on what
>you know of their past?

We call this net.vigilanteeism.  I've asked Jeff about it twice and
apparently he thinks it's a fine idea.  I've been unsuccessful in
ascertaining whether he thinks this tactic should be applied to him
but the fact that he refuses to answer my questions pretty much says
it all.

>What purpose has flaming anyway?  It gives people a chance to get on a high
>horse and (often) use language that they haven't had an excuse for previously.

Not necessarily.  To quote Harry Ugol and Dale Cook:

	....a.f is not for heated discussions but is instead for 
	creative and witty name-calling and other mindgames...
		<1115@male.EBay.Sun.COM> harryu@warpten.Central.Sun.COM 

	Some of the best humor on the network appears as good flames.  
	Some of them are witty, urbane, clever and downright funny. 
		<10988@encore.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com 

There does seem to be a lot of posturing going on here from netters
who write flames but who insist that because they do not post to a.f
or use four-letter words that what they write is not inflammatory.  

	"But sun it is not, when you say it is not,
	 And the moon changes even as your mind.
	 What you will have it named, even that it is..."