🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3YO1.E5xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> Perhaps it should be called a meaner word, like "rant".

Golly gee, Beaver, that would really burn 'em up, wouldn't it?
Something really mean like that would really force a change around here.

> 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.

Whatever makes you think that they would use it?  Does any flame war
ever get moved out of the group it was occuring in and into alt.flame,
"Followup-To: alt.flame" header lines and all?  No.  They never do.
At least good net.citizens who accept that they are very much flaming
often crosspost to that group so kill files can do their work.  A
large number of articles that appear in alt.flame are not crossed into
any other groups; they recognise that flaming has entertainment value
too.  Very rarely are these non-crossposted flames really related to
some topic that you would expect to see in some regular USENET group.

> 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.

So why do you suggest alt.rant?  You never mentioned in the article
but you're header and the "need a suitable ghetto" line seem to
indicate that you think the group should be created.  With alt.flame,
alt.peeves, alt.stupidity and such all already existing to do the
imagined job that you think the new group would perform why do we need
to add that to it all too?  Because "rant" is such a scathing word?

Dave
-- 
   (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
               "Nice plant.  Looks like a table cloth."