From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!uwvax!reid
Newsgroups: net.singles
Title: Re: The Psychology of Flames
Article-I.D.: uwvax.691
Posted: Sat Nov 20 15:39:47 1982
Received: Sun Nov 21 05:48:44 1982
References: populi.460

I say WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  And beyond that, this will bear no further re-
semblance to a flame, so as not to improve the case of the man with whom I
disagree!  Flames are productive, are interesting, and have their place, but
in my opinion they are a substitute for rational, compassionate thinking, and
are a cut below a good, honest discussion.  In any 'in-person' conversation,
anyone who shouts out an opinion without careful thought (a 'flame', if you
will), is rarely thought to be a wonderful contributor to the conversation.
The careful listener who makes comments, who states his/her opinion without
forcing it down someone's throat, is vastly preferable and closer to the social
ideal, whatever that is.  Especially
in an atmosphere like this, where people are prone to soul-baring, we should
be careful.  Can you imagine some emotionally charged situation like people
discussing their recent divorces where somebody will jump and shout "You're
being a baby--shut up!".  That wouldn't go over too well.  Why don't those
of you/us who like to flame just flame into a file, then reread it the next
day and post a rational opinion?....

Glenn Reid