Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!chronon!eric
From: eric@chronon.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.med,net.nlang,net.news
Subject: Re: Flame etymology clarification
Message-ID: <259@chronon.chronon.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-May-86 02:43:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: chronon.259
Posted: Sat May 17 02:43:21 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 17-May-86 23:37:47 EDT
References: <2466@aecom.UUCP> <340@pilchuck.UUCP> <1953@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: eric@chronon.UUCP (Eric Black)
Distribution: na
Organization: Chronon Computer Corp., Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 21
Xref: decwrl net.med:4053 net.nlang:4436 net.news:4405

In article <1953@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:
>
>The term flame is not necessarily tied to news or even electronic
>communication.  At MIT (where this use of the term may have originated),
>we often talked about flaming in person.  Anyone arguing excessively was
>considered to be flaming.  It didn't have to be insulting, nor did it
>even have to be directed at anyone in particular.
>
>I suspect that this use originated because a person who was arguing was
>getting hot and bothered.  Later, the transitive version of the term
>came into use, because a flamer could be directing his flames (like a
>flame thrower), so you could "flame at" someone.

I'd like to point out that we also awarded (at least we did 10 years ago)
the "Asbestos Cork Award" to the most deserving flaming a**hole...

I concur with the hot-and-bothered (rather than insulting/attacking)
origin.
-- 
Eric Black   "Garbage In, Gospel Out"
UUCP:        {sun,pyramid,hplabs,amdcad}!chronon!eric