🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <44cti8$orv@panix3.panix.com>, sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
wrote:

>In article <44a1ki$j1c@tweety.sna.com>,  <frodo@sna.com> wrote:
>>In article <449nbq$9so@panix3.panix.com>,
>>   sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>>>In article <446s7o$5og@tweety.sna.com>,  <frodo@sna.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <thurlowDFFE4E.1xs@netcom.com>,
>>>>   thurlow@netcom.com (Robert Thurlow) wrote:
>>>>>In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.950922111538.11088C-100000@mhc.mtholyoke.edu>,
>>>>>Katharine A Harrison  <kaharris@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I don't care for you sarcasm, and I don't care for your attitude.  
>>>>>
>>>>>Look, if you want to flame Charles, you need to do a *lot* better
>>>>>than that.  Trust me on this - I've seen some of the man's best
>>>>>flame art :-)
>>>
>>>>Gee Rob, flaming on the net makes as much sence as lighting farts at the 
>>>>movies. Maybe she doesn't want to flame hin at all?
>>>
>>>Then she shouldn't have done it at all, much less such a feeble
>>>job of it.
>
>>Seth - - - you have done such a poor job of snipping the thread I had to
think 
>>about what you presented here to figure out what I said. 
>
>What a shame, forcing you to think.  I hope you didn't burn out
>anything important.
>
>I followed the Usenet guidelines for followups (see
>news.announce.newusers) by editing the post I replied to down to the
>minimum necessary for comprehension.  You might try that (rather than
>quoting the entire post, including signature).
>
>>Saying you don't caring for something such as sarcasm or attitude is the 
>>expression or a feeling.  A flame on the other hand is a personel attack (I 
>>will get flamed for grammar, spelling and stupidity for using personel 
>>{personnel}in place of personal).
>
>Personal attacks are a category of flame.  Aficionados of flaming as
>an art form consider it the lowest category.
>
>>Since caring is a feeling; are you saying that the usenet is not an 
>>appropriate place to express feelings?
>
>Not at all.  I suggested that if flaming isn't what someone desired to
>do, then she shouldn't have done it.  I also pointed out that she did
>it poorly.
>
>> An alt binanary newsgroup might not be 
>>an appropriate place for feelings but aren't "Singles" newsgroups appropriate 
>>places to express feelings? 
>
>Does that include my feelings that the flame was inappropriate (based
>on a desire not to flame) and poorly done?
>
>>Seth if you don't agree that a Singles newsgroup is a good place to share 
>>feelings, why don't you restart the alt.sex.brothel newsgroup? That
would be a 
>>grand place to talk about sex between people without feelings or 
>>relationships. 
>
>"A" singles newsgroup?  Have you seen the abortion of a Newsgroups:
>line up there?
>
>>If you thought Katharine was flaming you must feel like a hotdog at a winnie 
>>roast right now.
>
>Hah.  It takes _real_ flames to affect me.  I doubt you're capable
>thereof.
>
>>That could be thought of as a personal attack. It wasn't meant as such.
I just 
>>wanted to point out to you that it was very hard for me to follow who was 
>>saying what.
>
>Count the ">" at the left margin.
>
>>If I had wanted to flame you I might have said something like this:
>>
>>[Seth You are an idiot!  You did such a shit job of snipping the thread I 
>>didjn't know who said what. Are you you using your Dad's computer? You write 
>>like a 10 year old idiot.]
>>
>>I trust you can see the difference.
>
>Yes: you can't flame for shit when you're trying to.
>
>>To recap, as I see it.
>>
>>Katharine said:
>>>>>> I don't care for you sarcasm, and I don't care for your attitude.  
>>
>>Frodo said:
>>>>Gee Rob, flaming on the net makes as much sence as lighting farts at the 
>>>>movies. Maybe she doesn't want to flame hin at all?
>>
>>Seth said:
>>>Then she shouldn't have done it at all, much less such a feeble
>>>job of it.
>
>>Katharine expressed a feeling.
>>
>>Frodo expressed an opinion on flaming in general and his his feelings 
>>reguarding Katharine's post.
>>
>>Seth launched a personal attack at Katharine for expressing her feelings.
>
>Huh?  Seth said, based on Frodo's claim that Katharine was flaming and
>might not have wanted to, that she did it very poorly, and shouldn't
>have done it in the first place if she didn't want to.
>
>>Seth if I am missing something here please enlighten me.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Seth

Much to do about nothing.

Karon

------------------------------------------------
Karon G. Campbell                    All Reality is Virtual
 
I am me and only me 
Whatever that may be.