Re: In re: Spam and Gate Crashing

Charles Glasser wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Christian L. Castle wrote:
> >
> > Forgive my ignorance, but can someone distinguish "flaming" from
> > "spamming" for me?
>
> "Flaming" is an annoying, ad hominum or outright nasty attack with a
> person or group as the subject matter, usually posted for the world to
> see.

You should be more careful to use the term "ad hominem" appropriately. Ad hominem is the name of a logical fallacy (meaning "To the man") whereby an argument is claimed to be false because it was expressed by a particular person. Such arguments MAY be nasty, though they need not be insults, and not all insults are ad hominem arguments. For example:

Real Ad hominem: Ghosts don't exist because Mr. Smith said they do and he has no college degree! Plus he dresses strangely and doesn't take out his trash regularly.

Justifiable insult: You are an idiot for driving that bus load of kids after drinking that quart of vodka! What kind of moron would put people's lives in danger like that? You are just a no good dangerous drunk!

Unjustifiable insult, but not ad hominem: You know, I really hate the way you hold your fork. It makes me want to strangle you right here and now. You are a disturbing person and deserve to be shot.  

> FYI: Under Connceticut's new computer law, flaming may be illegal, if
> the law is given a liberal construction.
 

That is truly frightening. Could you post the relevant bit of the law? That sounds like it ought to be unconstitutional. We all have a right to flame if we want. Spamming is another matter entirely.

--Brian

Brian K. Yoder
<byoder[_at_]netcom.com> Received on Wed Oct 25 1995 - 17:58:26 GMT