From: mcguire@cs.utexas.edu (Tommy Marcus McGuire)
Subject: Re: So, do any XXXX, I mean police officers read this stuff?
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 63
NNTP-Posting-Host: earth.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Apr23.143128.21344@dsd.es.com> bgardner@pebbles.es.com (Blaine Gardner) writes:
>In article <ltdv8aINN3hb@earth.cs.utexas.edu> mcguire@cs.utexas.edu (Tommy Marcus McGuire) writes:
[...]
>>"Hey, what the hell do you mean by that?  You suck.  I have a god-given
>>right to express opinions, carry a gun and to not wear a helmet, goddamn 
>>it. Everything you stand for is STUPID."
>
>I'd give it an 0.5 on a scale of 10. While not mentioning Hitler or
>Koresh weighs in your favor, you also neglected to mention 105 mph, tennis
>balls, little girls and countersteering. Another thing to consider is,
>that like Mexican food, a lot of folks mistake heat for quality. Subtle
>references to various personal qualities/habits/ancestry/possesions
>generally earn more points than four letter words or the caps lock key.
>And introducing a new polysyllabic word (strabismic, for example) is
>likely to insure that some small part of your flame will become
>immortal.
>-- 
>Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland
>bgardner@dsd.es.com

Aw, c'mon.  The serious overreaction ought to be worth a couple of points,
not to mention the bit condemning everthing the flamee might ever say.
The non sequitur about guns and helmets is just the proper flourish.

I personally am of the opinion that there are two types of good flames.
The first does trade ``quality,'' in the sense you mention, for heat.
This has a certain surprise value and if done correctly, which I
contend was done above, is reasonably entertaining.  While it is true that
the flame I posted does not mention anyone's habitual velocity, friends,
dinner, or entertainment, it says what it needs to with the appropriate
flair and it is short.  The weakness of this type of flame is actually
that it can easily be taken too far, at which point it becomes trite and
boring.  (Witness the Infante thread recently....)

The other type of flame, which you seem to be glorifying above, has
a few weaknesses as well.  In the first place, it can get verbose and 
tedious in the extreme, particularly if the reader does not already strongly
identify with one side or the other.  In the second, discussing someone's
personal qualities, habits, and so forth can quickly become libelous.
(Or is that slanderous?  I can never remember the difference.)  This leads
to a proliferation of lawyers, which is widely regarded as a BAD THING.
Finally, introducing polysyllabic words is problematic.  I can't haul my
big dic. around on my bike, and it would be bad form to use a word which
actually turned out to have a meaning, especially one which ran counter
to my use and flamage in general.

In summary, Blaine, your score for that flame is incorrect.  While it may
be the wunder-flame, the weaknesses you point out are not necessarily
weaknesses, and your suggested corrections are not always useful nor
applicable.  You also probably couldn't outrun a tennis ball with a
flatulent dog stapled to your posterior, and I'll bet you and your 
motorcycle lean to the outside while turning.  The same goes for anyone
who looks like you, too.


-----
Tommy McGuire
mcguire@cs.utexas.edu
mcguire@austin.ibm.com

"...I will append an appropriate disclaimer to outgoing public information,
identifying it as personal and as independent of IBM...."

