Flaming others...

[Woody]

The cheeks ARE just too close to the lips and you have proven my point.

[David Koot]

Yeah, its just so hard to restrain the little cusses. They are so affectionate. I don't want to hurt their feelings. But I dont take to being smooched by no dog, either. Bet my wife won't kiss me for a week now lol.

[Neil D]

Yeah, its just so hard to restrain the little cusses. They are so affectionate. I don't want to hurt their feelings. But I dont take to being smooched by no dog, either. Bet my wife won't kiss me for a week now lol.

Yeah, but the question is-

....does she stick her tongue ON your cheek????

LOL

Ok, I am going to quickly put on my fire retardent underwear!

[David Koot]

okay, okay, you better put on your fire retardant undies. No, she doesnt stick her tongue ON my check. But the doggie licked me right on my lips. THAT is where my wife kisses me--when I'm not in the doghouse lol.

[Neil D]

Yeah but does she put her tongue IN your cheek....

Ok, now I will be behind this rock as we return to our regularly scheduled flaming....

[David Koot]

HIDE behind that rock, ol' son. HIDE.

[Woody]

Why is it that a good wholesome discussion on Flaming ... has gone to the DOGS?

Neil .... I think that it is YOU that is responsible for this.

[Neil D]

Why is it that a good wholesome discussion on Flaming ... has gone to the DOGS?

Neil .... I think that it is YOU that is responsible for this.

This from a man who is stiring the cowpie......Hmmmmmm.....

[Woody]

If you recall .... you are the one that started the "ON" the cheek discussion.

[Amelia]

I don't know about my cheek but my tongue goes alot of places.

[Neil D]

If you recall .... you are the one that started the "ON" the cheek discussion.

As I recall, you were the one who TIC TOC his way around and asked "Where is Neil when you need him?".....

[Woody]

Well .... you didn't HAVE to answer .....

[Amelia]

OK, both you guys stop baiting each other.

[Woody]

"Bait" ... Now lets talk about bait.

[Neil D]

OK, both you guys stop baiting each other.

Amelia

Are you phishing for something?

[Clio]

Originally Posted By: Amelia

OK, both you guys stop baiting each other.

Amelia

Are you phishing for something?

I declare the pundits the winners. [/TIC]

[CyberGuy]

That is an age old problem on ALL internet forums. Polictics and religion are the two age old fights that wars have been fought over. Why should it be any different on a forum.

I remember I discussed a religious issue I was having a problem with on the forum 7 years ago and I was flamed bad. I just came to the conclusion I will solve my own religious dilemna and forget what others had to say on the subject. Same for politics. Now I just argue for the fun of it. I used to be to change peoples minds but now I know changing peoples minds are next to impossible. Now it is more a battle of wits and logic. Who can outwit and outlogic the opposition. I admit it can be fun but sometimes the otherside comes out with both barrels blazing.

[Tom Wetmore]

Flaming is largely about control and is not just about being nasty and rude. The following was previously posted and bears repeating:

A point of clarification. When one has referred to a "flame war" it should not be understood as only an ever escalating and endless war of nasty, rude, insulting, hateful and hurtful words. That is only one type of flame war. If that is the only sort of flaming that you are worrying about, CA has hardly the glow of a candle in the wind. What I am referring to are the "clean" flame wars that are destroying this place. Here is a set of "clean" flame war "rules", all of which are frequently and sometimes zealously followed here:

Rules for Flame Wars

These rules are issued in the spirit of clearing up some preconceptions about the waging of flame wars. Flame wars do not require profanity [or other rudeness, sarcasm or mean-spiritedness - Tom], as commonly misbelieved. The following list demonstrates ways to undertake "clean" flame wars:

1. Accuse the other party of your worst faults.

2. Insist that you are an avatar of the Truth and that the other person is Falsehood incarnate, or at least "misled."

3. Dwell on errors. Correct them in others at every opportunity.

4. Never apologize unequivocably. If forced to apologize, justify yourself in a way that makes it sound like the other party was responsible for your actions.

5. Write in such a way that the other party looks stupid if they don't respond.

6. Try to be many things at once, so that you can deny everything that is said about you.

7. Say the same thing over and over again.

8. Always strive to get the last word.

9. Never let a debate rest. Never allow the other party to withdraw without making it clear that they have lost.

10. Insist that you are misunderstood.

11. If you can't find something to flame the person about, make something up. Convince yourself that you see the "real" motives.

12. Remember: Winning is everything.

******

Rule for Those Who Do Not Want to Get into Flame Wars:

Ignore them.

-- by Joel GAzis-SAx, in Jaida N'Ha Sandra's The Joy of Conversation: The Complete Guide to Salons, p. 224.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

And also previously posted, but still quite apropos:

I think to a large extent we are witnessing the following point made in Virginia Shea's Netiquette:

Quote:

In the worst-case scenario, a protracted flame war can destroy a discussion group. Inevitably, the least common denominator principle takes hold, and the group sinks to the level of the loudest and lowest flamers.

And we have also been victimized by this sort of ill-mannered netiquette policing:

Quote:

...Having good manners yourself doesn't give you license to correct everyone else.

If you do decide to inform someone of a mistake, point it out politely, and preferably by private email rather than in public... notes pointing out Netiquette violations are often examples of poor Netiquette.

For the whole thing - Netiquette

Tom

[Woody]

That is an age old problem on ALL internet forums. Polictics and religion are the two age old fights that wars have been fought over. Why should it be any different on a forum.

I remember I discussed a religious issue I was having a problem with on the forum 7 years ago and I was flamed bad. I just came to the conclusion I will solve my own religious dilemna and forget what others had to say on the subject. Same for politics. Now I just argue for the fun of it. I used to be to change peoples minds but now I know changing peoples minds are next to impossible. Now it is more a battle of wits and logic. Who can outwit and outlogic the opposition. I admit it can be fun but sometimes the otherside comes out with both barrels blazing.

I very much appreciate the honesty in this post. I guess the adage "sad but true" would apply.

But surely there has to be some way where we could allow you to explore in a safe way ... your questions of sincerety and have a "civil" discussion where no one could try to "out wit and out play" you. ???

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Amelia

OK, both you guys stop baiting each other.

Amelia

Are you phishing for something?

Neil .... "phishing and phlaming" are both strictly prohibited.

I am now phinished with this discourse.

[David Koot]

When one has referred to a "flame war" it should not be understood as only an ever escalating and endless war of nasty, rude, insulting, hateful and hurtful words. That is only one type of flame war. If that is the only sort of flaming that you are worrying about, CA has hardly the glow of a candle in the wind.

I think there could be some disagreement about the intensity of such on C/A. However, I also think it is safe to say that if the activity you have described here tones down, then you won't have to worry about the 'other kind' which attempts to deal with "nasty, rude, insulting, hateful and hurtful words." Stop resorting to those, and you won't have to worry about the other. Set a good example.

[Woody]

I would like to speak to the topic of flaming.

I think if we would just try to sometimes ... find the good in people then it would help the atmosphere.

If we would occasionally stop our desire to always have a thought or a text to move the conversation the way we want ... and to just find some kind of agreement with others. Compliment others. For ONE moment .... if we could not have to hold up the banner of 'Truth' . I think this would be a more pleasant place.

Do unto others ....

[David Koot]

I think you have some good points, Redwood, as far as looking for the good in people, and seeking areas of agreement. I am for both of those things. I also recognize the interest and the importance of seeking to understand what is truth. That can be done amicably. It has been, in my experience and to my observation. Here is where I have seen the system break down and 'flaming' begin. Someone states an opinion or view about a topic. That opinion is questioned. The questions and disagreements are in good faith, sincere and arising out of interest in the subject. However, the questions and disagreements are taken offense to. I would suggest two things: first, if someone questions another person's view or position, assume the questions are in good faith, unless the words used clearly indicate a different intent; second, those who do express opinions or ideas would do well to do so with humility and openness, and welcome differing ideas, the focus being not on the individual or his or her opinions, but on the subject or the inquiry. Paul the apostle reminds not to esteem ourselves more highly than others. Avoid self-importance and, in this context, attaching undue significance to one's opinions.

Dave

[David Koot]

I wish to comment on a thread on Townhall, as an illustration. That is the 'reasons for sinning' thread. Different beliefs and perspectives are represented there. However, the discussion is being carried forward, by and large, with an antique courtesy which would have graced the Senate chamber in better days. It can be done.

Dave