--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Almost everyone flames occasionally, because > almost everyone has buttons that get pushed > occasionally. > > And almost everyone who flames occasionally > doesn't think that they're doing it, or thinks > that they're fully justified in doing it.
However, that isn't the issue. The issue is that there was a consensus here *not to flame*, no matter how justified the flame was perceived to be. But a few people have decided they shouldn't have to honor that consensus. <snip> > Everybody flames from time to time. That's a > given. How then do you tell when someone has > gotten *so* out of control that a bit of inter- > vention might be required? > > Easy as pie. > > Can they be persuaded to drop the subject? If > so, the state of attention has passed and they > are human again. > > But if they keep *prolonging* the subject, keep > bringing it up and restating it in different > ways, keep trying to defend themselves, keep > trying to "win," or to suck more and more people > into the discussion, then they're not only flam- > ing, they are completely lost in the flame state > of attention. And they might just need a good > kick in the nuts to wake them up to this fact. In other words, hit-and-run flames are perfectly OK, as far as Barry's concerned. He shouldn't have to control the impulse to flame as long as he drops it after having flamed. What's the flamee permitted to do in this case? Does the flamee get to flame back, or just fume silently? > Did I overreact yesterday to mainstream's made- > up assertions about me and resort to flaming? > You betcha. I ripped him a big new one. Do I > regret it? Only a little. But did it pass, and > did I drop the subject? Yes I did. And yet some > are still debating it and attempting to perpetuate > it and point fingers and say, "X was a bigger > flamer than Y." No, the point is *that you flamed*. We agreed not to do that. You don't think that agreement applies to you. That's where the fingers are pointed. Not to mention that you've repeatedly pointed not just a finger but both hands and feet in outrage when someone goes over the posting limit, accusing *them* of being out of control and not thinking the rules apply to them. Is this an example of enlightened inconsistency, perhaps? Because here in the relative, it's known as hypocrisy.
