From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: annoyance
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:51:44 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <8121@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, sho@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) writes...

>heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM) writes:
>>sho@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) writes...
>>>Really, now.  Didn't they tell you not to feed or insult the
>>>natives when you went to newbie camp?
>>
>>HEIM'S LAW OF TALK.BIZARRE ETIQUETTE: Everyone is fair game in t.b
> 
>My, my, my...  You've decided to name something after
>yourself.  How very quaint.  I'm sure that generations of
>t.b'ers will be singing the praises of Heim's law (or
>"HEIM'S LAW", as you so eloquently put it) long after you
>have been killed.
>
>Now as for your little law, you are half right.  Yes, it is
>true that we don't pull any punches, regardless of seniority.
>What I wanted to get across was not that it's disallowed,
>but that it's unwise.
> 
>You will note that this group is not called talk.insult.  We
>do not insult each other for the hell of it.  Why, then, do
>we flame?
> 
>1) The Flame as Art
>A deliciously crafted flame can be as enjoyable to read as
>anything you will find on Usenet.

Right, so that's what you should have come up with something better 
than 'You're not as funny as Hitler'.  Not very difficult to be 
sure but you didn't even try.  You just said 'I'm above being flamed'.

>2) The Flame as Steering Device
>The cascade epidemic comes to mind.  Sometimes, we find,
>sadly, that we must flame newbies who do not get it.
> 
>Before either of these reasons becomes an excuse to flame, I
>would urge you to consider contributing something of value.
>Write articles you think other people might enjoy before
>passing judgment.  It could be that you have already tried,
>and that I've not found anything to be memorable.  

90% of t.b is less enjoyable than my "Hitler was funnier" message 
(including everything in this thread since then).

>I do, however, remember several seemingly pointless flames
>that you've written recently.  

Actually, this is not the case.  Each flame had a point.

>Ask yourself this: why am I posting these flames?  Do I
>expect someone on the other end of the line to read this and
>find it enjoyable?  

Is that what you asked yourself before you wrote this message?

>Am I providing a service by flaming?  Or
>am I just boosting my own ego?

You GOTTA be kiddin me.  YOU'RE accusing ME of posting for ego sake?  
That truly IS bizarre.  All I did was post some little joke about you 
not being as funny as Hitler.  You coulda just laughed if off but your 
ego wouldn't let you.

>>PS.  Lets face it, Sho, the post was Lame-O (tm) and so was the 
>>follow-up.  Take it like a man.
> 
>Yawn.
>First, it's "you don't have a sense of humor."
>Now, it's "your post was lame."
>Next, you'll post a spelling flame.

Come on, Sho, this is beneath you.  "Yawn"?  Is that supposed to 
impress me?  I'm a semi-newbie, at least I have an excuse.  I might 
point out that your original reply contained the words something like: 
"Ha ha ha ha ha".  If I'd written that, I'd be embarrassed.

Look, if you want to tell me my posts suck that's fine.  I can take 
it.  Can you?

>Could we be a little more boring, please?

I'm glad you said 'we'.

John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu