Susan, your comments about flames evoked a few questions for me. When I read various flames, I see them fall into different categories, and I wonder if there's a kind of hierarchy of flames. One level might be the adolescent, hit-and-run flame (often containing some obscenities) where one gets the impression this person is just acting out in a random sort of fashion. This person may have little or no feeling or attachment to the group where s/he's aiming his/her remarks (a drive-by flame?).
Another level might be those who haven't learned to separate the idea from the personal attack, i.e., that may just be the way they argue at home, and it doesn't translate well to the written word. Others may find that arguing and flaming are the only ways they know how to engage with others, and they enjoy being part of a heated exchange. The adrenalin flows, and they feel more connected.
When you refer to dealing, as a forum monitor, with flames, it would seem that your responses might depend upon the level of sophistication of the flamer, or their attachment to the group as well as the general ambiance of the forum. Certainly, a cancer support group would be much more sensitive to flaming than, say, a political forum, I would think. Different levels of argument are appropriate in different places, and the ability to understand the difference between attacking the person and debating an idea might be much more pertinent in some groups than in others.
Just as some people are able to translate improved (more open) relationships skills (acquired in cyberspace) to f2f situations, perhaps the internet can help others understand the way their anger and defensiveness comes across to others in RL.
John, has this all been talked about somewhere else? Although I know there's been much discussion about flames in general, do you know of any references that deal with the varieties of flames and their contexts? Thanks.