Re: To conlang or to flame, that's the question.

Sally Caves wrote:

> Bryan Maloney wrote:
>
> > > And if you say you weren't putting down someone who attacked it, you're a
> > > liar, because "liar" is an insult.
> >
> > Never claimed not to have done so--it got your attention, didn't it?
>
> Looks like we've got somebody here more interested in flaming than
> conlanging on this list.  Some people get other people's attention with
> the inventiveness of their art forms.  Flaming usually comes down to
> that... a bid for attention where other attempts have failed.  Settle
> down boys.
I totally agree.  One of the reasons why I value this list so much is
the almost complete absence, usually, of flame wars like this.  Moreover,
though, I feel that anyone who insists on nitpicking everyone's faults
should hold themselves to just as high a standard (for no one is perfect,
intellectually or otherwise), and should not be at all disturbed if people
respond in kind.  This is, of course, what we *don't* want, so let's
stop it here.

=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
========================================================