From: car377@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (charles.a.rogers)
Subject: Re: So, do any XXXX, I mean police officers read this stuff?
Organization: AT&T
Summary: Ah, the impetuousness of youth!
Lines: 61

In article <ltgnt9INNfpq@earth.cs.utexas.edu>, mcguire@cs.utexas.edu (Tommy Marcus McGuire) writes:
> 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. [analysis and hints deleted]
> 
> 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.

Nope.  Flames should be *interesting*.  Around here, guns & helmets
are the wallpaper.

> 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.  

Not everyone in rec.motoland is so easily amused.  Blaine, as an Elder,
has seen the Superflamers at their peaks (or depths, if you prefer).  
With that sort of incendiary backdrop, awarding your faltering Bic a
0.5 was the purest act of charity.

> 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.

Unless, of course, your audience has only seen several thousand similarly
uninspiring attempts in this arena.  In that case, the trite & boring
threshold tends to drift away from where you first set it, as yours will,
eventually (or not).

> The other type of flame, which you seem to be glorifying above, 
> ... [blah, blah, blah] ...
> 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.  

Until you can yank the flame out of Blaine's Internet Port before he
can io_close() it, you are in no position to lecture him, grasshopper.

> 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.

Oh please (yawn), you're slipping further down the scale with each
successive attempt.  It's so embarrassing to watch.   Say, you're not
from Waco, are you?

Chuck Rogers
car377@torreys.att.com
