Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: I've been Flamed!!!!!!!! NOT!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 21:26:52 -0700
<And you don't know what logic is> <=- A flame.

Oh my god! I've been flamed! Or was that a match? It didn't hurt much.
Personally I think it takes a little more than unconstructive criticism to
constitue a Flame.

Taking Doctor Doom's Metaphysical Manipulation as an example, unconstructive
criticism would be to say, "This is a bad idea. The rules you made were
unbalanced and unnecessary." On the other hand a flame would look something
like this, "Doom your a moron. I can't believe your would do something as dumb
as base a spell success test off of the mage's Magic Attribute. This is
probably one of the dumbest rule modifications I've every heard of in my life!"
Can you see the difference?

See Ya in Shadows,
Jason J Carter
The Nightstalker

P.S. (BTW: It's spelled 'sorry') :) Ever heard of a typo?
P.P.S. Those comments on Doom's magic were ficticous and were by no means meant
to be taken as anything but as an example of a flame.
Message no. 2
From: Blaidd mab Ceryddwen <MHILLIARD@******.BITNET>
Subject: Re: I've been Flamed!!!!!!!! NOT!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 09:04:00 EDT
No dummy, that's CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Why? Cus' it's constructive. Duh.
Constructive criticism is well-intentioned and usually makes a point, moron.
Unconstructive criticism (a flame) can make a point, but it's usually expressed
in a rude manner. Like this. Thank you for calling Stu Spencer Associates.

Phelan

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about I've been Flamed!!!!!!!! NOT!!!!!!!, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!