🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1746@dukeac.UUCP> ggw@dukeac.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes:
> 	That is to say, that a flame is constituted by a discussion that
> a reader/poster chooses to label (explicitly or implicitly) as a flame.
> A particular topic thread can be a flame and still be quite rational and
> devoid of personal attacks.  The definition of a flame is ultimatly up to
> the reader.

Fine, then there's something wrong with current usage in which a spiteful
personal attack without merit or relevence merely gets labelled a flame. It's
this activity that's become far too common and that I'm saying is never
appropriate. Perhaps it should be called a meaner word, like "rant". And we
need a suitable ghetto for the top ranters on the net to expose their genitals
at each other without disturbing the saner majority.

I would like to note, though, that I recently had a look at alt.flame. I must
say that most of the stuff in there falls into the "rant" category.

I would like to note that someone has brought up another occasion on which I
may have been guilty of flaming (or rather, ranting), and that's when Brad
started up Clarinet. I apologise to all and to Brad in particular. I still
remain apprehensive about Brad's service, but so far he seems to be keeping
it under control quite well.
-- 
 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'