A flame by any other name...
TWB · 11/15/97 at 5:54 PM ET
>What do the rest of you think about posts to bb's that both present a valid argument, and "flame" at the same time? It's easy to "remove" messages that are just insults...but what about when the poster supports his "flame" with rational and important ideas? <
Personally, I'm disappointed that flaming exists to the degree it does. If you don't remove a message that contains flaming, haven't you condoned flaming? While a "flame" might be "supported" with rational and "important" ideas, that doesn't, in my mind, justify flaming as a useful, benefiicial, or acceptable way of communicating those ideas. I've seen some wonderful "flames" which contain few, if any, personally-directed remarks, but it requires a bit of creativity to accomplish it--and creativity can be too time-consuming and bothersome. Might flaming contribute to a "dumbing down" of the vocabulary and interpersonal skills of those who use it?
An aside: How might Winston Churchill or Samuel Clemens fare on usenet?
Another aside: Have you wondered about possible "real world" impact of this medium? As increasing numbers of people participate on the net, will its sometimes abusive manner affect r.w. intercaction? I find it amusing to imagine how a family conflict might be conducted 100 years from now.
It appears mortality does have favorable aspects.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright ©1996-1999 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
