So let's get rid of UseNet! You might just as well suggest that we do away with newspapers, magazines and books. If anything, UseNet and the Web may one day come to be extensions of these things, even replace them. A few days' journey through UseNet, using Chapter Six will show you that UseNet is much too popular to be sh*t-canned.

Almost anything you would care to discuss, learn about or teach can be found on UseNet. So how does one avoid being flamed? How does one keep from being spammed, shammed, scammed and flim-flammed?

For the benefit of those who are new to the 'Net, let's see how flaming can start. Suppose you do not yet realize the global reach of UseNet. You might think of UseNet as very much like some local bulletin board (BBS) that you've read. So you subscribe to alt.animals.felines, and you post the following message:

--- FREE
--- KITTENS

You check back a few hours later and find two responses:

--- What kind of PINKO, COMMUNIST, SICK OINKER would
--- INCARCERATE a bunch of BABY CATS???

The other response is an admonition (sometimes tactful, sometimes not) that your post is NOT "on-topic" for that newsgroup.

The first response is a joke, yet it illustrates perfectly how flames can start. No matter how long you stay on UseNet, there will probably come a time when someone understands one of your posts in a different way than you meant it. And if they find your post to be offensive to them, then they might flame you. They might post a response that is designed to get back at you for pushing their emotional buttons. They will try to push your buttons back.

The second response is sometimes less than tactful. This is because the frequent posters of a newsgroup get very tired of someone blasting into the group with "off-topic" posts and spam. So they rant about it. You might find yourself writing mean, nasty things to get back at them. And another "flame war" begins.

These are just two of the many ways that a flame can start. Some flames are kindled by "trolls." This comes from the word's usage in fishing. A troll is a message that is specifically designed to push the emotional buttons of other people. A person who posts such a message is called a "troller." In recent times, the word "troll" has also become popular to refer to the person who sends the message. This is probably due to the troller's close resemblance to the "scary, ugly monster under the bridge."

Flaming can be a fun spectator sport. Sometimes when two or more "flame artists" go at each other, they can glue readers to their monitors for a time. To be more than a spectator, to actually become personally involved in a flame war, is NOT recommended for the feint-of-heart. UseNet is no longer the near-total anarchy it once was. And people have been prosecuted for "going too far," for breaking the laws in their country/state. An interesting example of going too far can be found in one of the most talked-about cases on UseNet. It's the story about how a simple little information post can erupt like a volcano into flames, "cyberstalking," libel, fraud and lawsuits. You will find the details at the following website:

A word about sending money to people who ask you for it on the Internet --

My personal rule-of-thumb is "DON'T DO IT!" but then, I am just a poor poet who has very little money to spare anyways. And there are too many scams going on here on the Internet. Con artists have found the 'Net to be a fertile field for their fancy flim-flam. I am fully convinced that Jayne Hitchcock's case is real and worthy of help. But you be careful before you go sending your hard-earned dollars out to people who ask you here on the 'Net. Just please be wise about it.

Here are some links for you to learn more about flaming:
(Remember, you can use your GO menu, BACK button, and your ALT-TAB task-switch to turn the pages of The Internet Story.)

>>>> OH! >>>> (and prepare for some "bad l*nguage")

Sudden Death facts: Ignore the hype and watch personal habits

We worry.
That produces stress.
So we smoke and drink and overeat.
Which is what we should really be worrying about.
But we don't.
Instead, we concern ourselves with exotic viruses, violent crime and plane crashes.
But consider this:
• The prospects of dying from a flesh-eating bacteria are one in a million.
• The average American's chance of being the victim of a violent crime is about one in 135.
• And more than 7 million airline flights are completed each year without incident.
James Walsh, author of "True Odds: How Risk Affects Your Everyday Life," says we spend too much time sweating the big stuff.
He calls this worry-du-jour tendency "telescoping," which he defines as "focusing on the few dramatic losses, rather than the mundane losses."
The recent deaths of Michael Kennedy and Sonny Bono in skiing accidents less than a week apart are classic examples.
Both men died of massive blunt trauma after hitting trees. Kennedy died while playing a game resembling touch football; Bono, it appeared, while intentionally skiing among trees.
In the aftermath of these high-profile deaths, there has been a heightened perception that skiing is a dangerous sport. This despite the fact that both men were engaging in extraordinarily risky behavior. This despite the fact that statistics show the odds of being killed skiing are about one in 1.4 million.
The twin tragedies also generated outcries for the mandatory use of helmets, a ban on tree skiing, even the elimination of trees on slope sides.
"Immediately after any tragedy, our thinking mechanism often operates to the detriment of reasonable thinking," says Leslie Lothstein, director of psychology at the Institute of Living in Hartford, Conn. "Why not wear helmets in cars? Why not seat belts on motorcycles?
"Sure, if you want to stay alive, there have to be certain controls and rules," Lothstein says. "You need to protect yourself, not put yourself into too-high-risk situations.
"But there is no way in life to eliminate all the risks and harm. When we see people we know die doing an ordinary thing like skiing, it is frightening to us."
Walsh agrees there is too much misplaced anxiety floating around.
"There is something in human nature that focuses on the most immediate and dramatic loss," Walsh says. "We don't focus on the biggest risk over the course of a lifetime. We focus on the latest, most dramatic risk. Never mind that it is far more dangerous to drive to the slopes than to ski on them."
In "True Odds," which Walsh says he wrote to help people better assess and identify real risk, he points out that "nine of 10 premature deaths are linked to one of six behaviors": smoking, overeating, alcohol abuse, high blood pressure, not exercising or not wearing seat belts.
"What is most likely to get you, far and away, is a car wreck in the neighborhood, or having a heart attack from eating too many juicy burgers," Walsh says.
To put risk in perspective, Walsh says there are many things the average person can do.
One suggestion is to not get sucked in by hype.
The bottom line?
Eventually, everyone dies from something, but one is not totally lacking influence as to the exact cause.

And here are some links on "SUDDEN DEATH" --