🚀 go-pugleaf

chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> [commentary about what constitutes a "flame"]
>>jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
>>> I would like to point out some legitimate reasons for flaming:
>
>>There are no legitimate reasons for flaming. The only reason for flaming is
>>to let off steam, and there are better ways to do that.
>
>I agree. I note only my current .signature:
>
>    There is one difference between a discussion and a flame. A discussion
>    is about an issue. A flame is about someone involved in a discussion.

	This seems to be degenerating in to semantic quibbling about what
constitutes a "flame".  In the early days of the net, one of the original
"flame wars" errupted over an unthinking gender-based stereotypical comment
about how "even my sister hacks computers for a living."

	The resulting flame war still persists with sporadic flare-up to
this day (even though the original progenitors are relativly quiet on the
net).  I don't recall that the "flames" were particularly aimed at the
personalities of the people involved, but instead were intended to raise the
conscience of the participants about their unconscious sexist attitudes.

	That is to say, that a flame is constituted by a discussion that
a reader/poster chooses to label (explicitly or implicitly) as a flame.
A particular topic thread can be a flame and still be quite rational and
devoid of personal attacks.  The definition of a flame is ultimatly up to
the reader.
-- 
Gregory G. Woodbury    ggw@dukeac.ac.duke.edu   ...!mcnc!ecsgate!dukeac!ggw
System Manager - dukcds     Center for Demographic Studies, Duke University
also at: ggw%dukcds@cs.duke.edu   dwolfe@tucc.tucc.edu   dwolfe@tucc.BITNET
The Line Eater is a Boojum Snark!       2117 Campus Drive; Durham NC  27706