The Art of the Flame

[Thomas Dowling]

Back in the early days of the net, when Men Were Men and Flames 
Were Flames (Women were Women, too) forthright contention didn't
count as "flames".  People were expected to have definite positions 
and defend them vigorously.  Both Robert's post and Peter's before 
it imply that the flamage on W4L has been fast and furious, whereas
I've simply seen a thread where people feel strongly on both sides.
I don't think there's even been a single comment about anyone's 
mother.

Once upon a time, flames were deliberate constructions, designed
to be vitriolic, over the top, and, well, inflammatory.  And they
were clearly delineated by the early markup tags FLAME ON and FLAME
OFF.  Since this is a branch of rhetoric seldom seen on the net
these days, I thought it might be helpful to punctuate its less 
than completely serious nature with a smiley.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've spent far more time on the discussion
of whether we've taken the CDA discussion as far as we should, than
I ever did on the CDA discussion itself.


Thomas Dowling        | I felt sorry for myself because I had no shoes.
OhioLINK              | Then I met a man who had no feet, and
tdowling at ohiolink.edu | I said, "Friend...can I have your shoes?"

----------
>From: 	Robert Wagers[SMTP:rwagers at wahoo.sjsu.edu]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:57 AM
>To: 	Thomas Dowling
>Cc: 	Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: 	RE: Telecom bill discussion / censorship / children on the net: enough

>   In the spirit of correction, why do you rip me for using a convention 
>and demean my suggestions, then finish with a smiley????