Within all the possible versions of flame wars, seems to me that we lack a clear definition of the phenomum, so it is easy to extend and extend without reaching clear conclusions. E-mail has the rare ability of producing the sensation of being "anonimus" and at the same time, reaching people with enough speed to keep a "conversation" flowing. It is clear that we say things through mail that we would never say face-to-face. But this element is common to any interacting activity via mail so, shall we focus on verbal aggresion? Must we fragment the problem including also graphic aggression?(icons, photos, signs) Aggresive notes can be made through elegant use of the languaje or directly flooding with blaming and coursing all the message. Some languajes and nationalities are richer in insults or their citizens are more easy on the use of cousing. In the end as you can see, the topic keeps opening and opening to an unlimited axpectrum of possible variables that are acting within the communication. You want to make it even more complex? Make a sense and symbol analysis of the communications; semiology have so many things to say. Even the synthax element can count as "non verbal" element that may drive to interesting situations into this communications. I feel we may have richer approaches if we can define more the problem of the flame and what elements are present there. Saludos Cristian Berrio _________________________________________________________________ Hable con sus amigos en línea, pruebe MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.es