FLAME! Don't read if not interested.

[Gord1@aol.com]

The media has conditioned us to want to watch other people's pain.  When
driving, we look at accidents, we loved watching the fate of OJ, the best
thing about making Michael Jackson and Madonna superstars is that we then get
to tear them down in anyway we can. 

You're reading this message.  You must be one of the silent few who hasn't
complained about flaming.  We're all against flaming, yet we all have to
peek.  Enquiring minds want to know.

In a message dated 96-03-25 17:43:14 EST, FIORE@napoli.infn.it writes:
>FACT 1:  People are quiting the list.

This statement assumes that a big list is good.  It assumes the more people
on the list, the better.  This list is not "for profit".  Who cares if we
lose one or two people.  Maybe flaming is a good thing.  After all, we are
all followers of The Who.  The Who were known to fight very publicly.  Most
other bands would try to hide their infighting.  Not Rog and Pete.

The sad thing is sometimes we forget how messages are interpreted on line. We
usually don't know each other's age, culture, ethnicity, education, "who"
experience, etc.  Without knowing who I am or without visual or vocal cues,
you really can't tell if I really agree with the above paragraph or am being
totally sarcastic.  

You had the choice to delete this message before reading it.  Why didn't you?

Those of us who feel public "flaming" is wrong should, IMHO either not
respond or respond privately.  When I see someone flame someone, my first
response is the flamer is an idiot.  If we, as a list, didn't respond to
flames, the flames would probably stop.  Maybe we should all agree to not
respect people who flame.  We'll just keep it to ourselves.  Flames quickly
fade away when they are not responded to.  Will this stop flaming?  Nope.
 But I'd bet that they would drop off considerably.

I hope the next time I discuss "Flame" that I am discussing the song from
Psychoderelict.

-Gordie