Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!morrison From: morrison@ficc.uu.net (Brad Morrison) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Flames Message-ID: Date: 13 Feb 90 22:51:15 GMT References: <11279@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <8PH13T7xds13@ficc.uu.net> <5659@blake.acs.washington.edu> <1740@skye.ed.ac.uk> Reply-To: morrison@ficc.uu.net (Brad Morrison) Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corp. (NYSEG SCADA) Lines: 26 In article <1740@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: > Flame does not mean ad hominem, despite what some people say. Perhaps Webster (whose dictionary has been misused here quite often of late) doesn't define it that way, but I think the question here is one of usage. I've never heard anyone say, "My article was flamed", or "They roundly flamed my idea". Instead, we have "He flamed me", "I was flamed", and "I may get flamed on this, but . . .". That's about as ad hominem as it gets, with a person as the object of the verb. I contend that to post a flame is to address the personality, rather than the issue. In this context, "address" can mean anything from a mildly dissenting opinion to complete disagreement. Such a criticism doesn't become a flame until you attack the person, rather than the idea. It's a lot like what's happened to our nation's political system, where issues are rarely, if ever, discussed objectively. In fact, news.groups is something a political forum, with discussion of the important issue of newsgroup creation, calls for votes, even campaigning. Some would argue that political factions exist. Few can deny that personality and popularity contests have become firmly entrenched in this news group. Well, art imitates life. I guess UseNET imitates society. -- Brad Morrison (713) 274-5449