The World of Computer Software/The World of Computer Software.iso/flames.zip/FLAMES.TXT

Text File | 1993-01-04 | 8KB | 190 lines

                      A GUIDE TO BBS FLAMES



     It has now become clear that some form of guideline must be
set down on the topic of BBS "flames".  The simple question-and-
answer discussion which follows is an attempt to define the term
"flame", to address where its use is appropriate, and to cite
examples of good and poor "flame technique".  For those lacking the
I.Q. of a cow-pasture mushroom [notice the word "idiots" was not
used], this effort may still not be enough.  It is to the remainder
of polite society -- the BBS elite -- that I dedicate this effort.

[Note to SysOps:  Please feel free to quote, reprint, or use this
in any constructive way you see fit.]

                              Stacy A. Thomas
                              January 4, 1993


     (Q)  WHAT IS A "FLAME"?

     (A)  In the vernacular of the BBS user, a "flame" is a
          personal attack directed at another user, most often in
          regard to a message left on a BBS.  "Flames" are
          frequently found as replies to topics of politics, race,
          religion, sex, or the weather.  These personal attacks
          usually have no direct connection with, and make no
          contribution to, the topic at hand.  "Flames" are often
          the expression of a sincere wish that the original
          message poster would depart for realms where Ben & Jerry
          don't deliver ice cream!


     (Q)  ARE "FLAMES" REALLY NECESSARY?

     (A)  In a word, YES!  One sometimes encounters an argument so
          profound in its position, and so persuasive in its
          presentation, that it stands on virtually unshakable
          pillars.  What alternative is left but a personal attack
          on the presenter?


     (Q)  DON'T MOST BBS SysOps PROHIBIT "FLAMES" ON THEIR BOARDS?

     (A)  Yes and no.  While direct attacks on the persona of other
          BBS users is generally prohibited, a particularly
          brilliant "strafing run" couched in genteel language
          often gets through.  It's kind of like wearing a suit and
          tie into a place that has a "No shirt, no shoes, no
          service!" sign.  You could be there to hold a fund-raiser
          for Edward Kennedy, but nobody would realize what you're
          up to until you're already in.


     (Q)  WHAT SORT OF "GENTEEL LANGUAGE" IS APPROPRIATE?

     (A)  There is a "polite" word for every disgusting substance
          and perverted act on the planet;  one need only do a
          proper substitution.  Still, this may be a challenge for
          the chronic MTV crowd, whose vocabulary is on par with
          that of a retarded parrot.  [Note the comparative style]


     (Q)  BUT DOES A POLITE REPLY EVER REALLY "BURN" THE TARGET OF
          THE "FLAME"?

     (A)  Oh yes!  In fact, a well worded flame is frequently
          enough to eclipse the original argument, and impress
          everyone else on the BBS with the brilliance of the
          reply.  This is the best of all possible results, because
          it permits one to avoid addressing the original question
          in a serious manner.  Others on the board of equally
          limited mental aptitude will quickly lose sight of
          "content", in the scholarship of the "form".  [Modern
          "Vance Packard" advertising technique]


EXAMPLES OF FLAMES


     Good:
          "I have it on good authority that your wife is a known
          thespian!"

     Analysis:
          This works well in some places, but not in others.
          Bible-Belt Bubba's will not recognize the difference
          between "thespian" [public speaker] and "lesbian" [female
          homosexual], and will immediately think the worst.
          Californians, on the other hand, might recognize this as
          a "progressive" family, and be favorably impressed.  In
          Colorado, someone would firebomb the BBS.


     Poor:
          "You are one closed-minded chicken-s*** son of a b****!"

     Analysis:
          Only by placing in the asterisks (those little star-
          looking things) [note; "assumption of ignorance" style]
          would a SysOp ever let you load it on the BBS.  However,
          many of your fellow users may then be too ignorant to
          figure out what the words should have been!  The attack
          is also a little too vociferous [the "50 cent word"
          technique] for we, the more sensitive users.


     Good:
          "Perhaps a sabbatical at Ding Dong School would improve
          your outlook culturally, as well as academically."

     Analysis:
          Very good.  One can never be too educated, and drawing
          attention to such a prestigious institution serves to
          demonstrate that you were no "Sesame Street lackey".


     Good:
          "I certainly wouldn't insult your intelligence (in fact
          I doubt if I could!)."

     Analysis:
          The "parenthetical blitz" technique consists of saying
          what you would have said if seated at the Captain's
          table, then placing in parentheses what you would have
          said if you were making the b****** walk the plank in
          shark-infested waters.  Good at the end of a dissertation
          because few people ever read that far.

     Poor:
          "You're a stinking bigot!"

     Analysis:
          Though obviously true, this conclusion is unsupported by
          the facts.  How, for instance, could one tell if the
          subject stinks over a BBS?  On the other hand, if you
          believe the movie "Platoon", "Opinions are like a**-
          holes; everybody's got one!"  If a bigot is merely a
          very-opinionated person, and we know how opinions are, I
          suppose its possible to infer that he is a "stinking"
          bigot!  (Poor example, wasn't it?)


     Good:
          "We post-Neanderthal humans don't quite see it your way.
          Could you elaborate further on your position?"

     Analysis:
          The "us and them" technique works if at least one other
          subscriber on the BBS agrees that the message poster is
          a turkey.  Properly carried to its extreme, he quickly
          feels he is fighting the entire BBS.


     Good:
          "Your moving to another board would raise the average
          I.Q. of both BBS's!"

     Analysis:
          Very good.  If you can't say something constructive,
          don't say anything at all!  Isn't self-improvement
          everybody's goal?


     Good:
          "I heard that same silly argument made by someone on
          another BBS.  You are certainly more articulate than he
          was."

     Analysis:
          The "left-handed complement" technique [no offence
          intended to you southpaws].  While making a negative
          statement about the argument, one compliments the arguer,
          thereby appearing to be completely objective.  This style
          is the specialty of political campaign "spin doctors",
          who can paint even motherhood and apple pie in a negative
          light.


CONCLUSIONS


     If American politics and advertising have taught us nothing
else, they have shown that intelligence and honesty have nothing to
do with being persuasive.  Stated another way, personal attacks can
be just as good as facts.  In recognition of this universal truth,
it is up to all BBS users to upgrade the quality of their "flames"
so they can take their place as a valid form of BBS communication.
Remember:  If George Bush can do it with Willie Horton, so can you!