Interesting discussion on flaming and flame wars. Couple of quick reflections: 1) A tip of the hat to Mickey Waxman Thanks for brining the Fantastic Four into the thread. Johnny Storm used to shout, "Flame On." His companions were Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Girl, and The Thing. 2) Flaming in history The verb expression "to flame," and the adjective "flaming," has a long heritage. Flaming has been a way to express displeasure since the Great Moderator expelled Adam and Eve from the original discussion group. "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of Eden cherubim and a faming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24). Throughout history, fire and flames have been used as a metaphor for passion, strong feelings, and heated or intemperate speech. (Flames produce heat. That which is intemperate is the contrary of that which is temperate, mild, or cool.) Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary traces the word to the 14th century, "Main Entry: 2flame Function: verb Inflected Form(s): flamed; flam·ing Date: 14th century intransitive senses 1 : to burn with a flame : BLAZE 2 a : to burst or break out violently or passionately <flaming with indignation> b : to send an angry, hostile, or abusive electronic message 3 : to shine brightly : GLOW <color flaming up in her cheeks> transitive senses 1 : to send or convey by means of flame <flame a message by signal fires> 2 : to treat or affect with flame: as a : to sear, sterilize, or destroy by fire b : FLAMBé 3 : to send an angry, hostile, or abusive electronic message to or about - flam·er noun." And "Main Entry: flam·ing Pronunciation: 'flA-mi[ng] Function: adjective Date: 14th century 1 : resembling or suggesting a flame in color, brilliance, or wavy outline <the flaming sunset sky> <flaming red hair> 2 : being on fire : BLAZING 3 : INTENSE, PASSIONATE <flaming youth> 4 -- used as an intensive <you flaming idiot> - flam·ing·ly /-mi[ng]-lE/ adverb." The 1913 edition of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary gave the verb as "Flame (Page: 566) Flame, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Flamed (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Flaming.] [OE. flamen, flaumben, F. flamber, OF. also, flamer. See Flame, n.] 1. To burn with a flame or blaze; to burn as gas emitted from bodies in combustion; to blaze. The main blaze of it is past, but a small thing would make it flame again. Shak. 2. To burst forth like flame; to break out in violence of passion; to be kindled with zeal or ardor. He flamed with indignation. Macaulay. Flame (Page: 566) Flame, v. t. To kindle; to inflame; to excite. And flamed with zeal of vengeance inwardly. Spenser." And the adjective as "Flaming (Page: 566) Flam"ing (?), a. 1. Emitting flames; afire; blazing; consuming; illuminating. 2. Of the color of flame; high-colored; brilliant; dazzling. In flaming yellow bright." Prior. 3. Ardent; passionate; burning with zeal; irrepressibly earnest; as, a flaming proclomation or harangue." For the relevant definitions of the verb "to flame," The Oxford English Dictionary offers, "1. a. intr. To burn with a flame or with flames; to emit flames; to blaze. Also with away, forth, out, up. 1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. XVII. 205 A fyre flaumende forth oute of boe. ?a1400 Morte Arth. 1975 Owre kyng gerte felschene his fyrez, flawmande fulle heghe. 1481 CAXTON Myrr. II. iii. 67 Fyre brennyng..goth flammyng vnto the clowdes. 1548 HALL Chron. 195b, Other causes..made ye fyre to flame. 1601 SHAKES. Jul. C. I. iii. 16 His left Hand which did flame..Like twentie Torches. 1632 LITHGOW Trav. x. 479 Fire lying hid under ashes, and touch'd will flame. 1654 H. L'ESTRANGE Chas. I (1655) 165 The Admiral of Portugal began to flame being fired with two Holland fire ships. 1667 MILTON P.L. I. 62 A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round As one great Furnace flam'd. 1725 DE FOE Voy. round World (1840) 242 A volcano..flamed out that night. 1774 GOLDSM. Nat. Hist. (1862) I. viii. 39 Spirits of wine will flame with a candle, but not with a spark. c1839 LANDOR Imag. Conv., Southey & Porson II, There is a paleness in intense fires; they do not flame out or sparkle. 1853 KANE Grinnell Exp. xxxix. 356 Lard lamps flaming away vigorously. . . 2. fig. a. Of the passions, etc.: To burn like flames. to flame out: to burst out violently. a1591 R. GREENHAM Wks. (1599) 22 Though he keep thy sinne from flaming out. a1625 BEAUM. & FL. Lover's Progress I. i. (Rtldg.) 637/2 Lascivious fires, should such flame in you. 1707 NORRIS Treat. Humility vi. 240 Here and there where their malice flames out. 1849 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. II. 244 The rage of James flamed high. b. Of persons: To burn (with envy, fury, indignation, etc.); to look angrily or passionately upon. to flame out, up: to break out into open anger or indignation; to 'fire up'. 1548 UDALL, etc. Erasm. Par. Matt. xxii. 106 Whiche wholy flame with enuy and hatred. 1681 CROWNE Hen. VI, IV. 49, I flame with fury to be at it. a1701 SEDLEY Happy Pair (1766) 16 With heat of loue he flam'd upon his mate. 1754 RICHARDSON Grandison V. xiv. 112 If the alliance..take effect..how will she flame out! 1849 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. I. 195 He flamed with indignation. 1858 CARLYLE Fredk. Gt. (1865) I. III. vi. 180 An Osianderism..much flamed-upon by the more orthodox ism. 1858 Ibid. (1865) II. V. viii. 132 Queen Sophie..did once..lose her royal patience and flame out. 3. transf. To glow like flame or as with flames; to shine brightly, gleam ruddily. Also with away, forth, up, etc. 13.. E.E. Allit. P. A. 768 Maskellez bryd at bryt con flambe. 1530 PALSGR. 551/1, I have sene the yerthe flame a nyght season lyke any fyre. 1535 STEWART Cron. Scot. II. 320 The face of Phebus flamand fair. 1621 BEAUM. & FL. Thierry & Theodoret III. ii. (Rtldg.) 417/2 There's anger yet Flames in your eyes. 1698 CROWNE Caligula I. Dram. Wks. 1874 IV. 360 Cæsar [led] A flying camp of ranting concubines, Who flam'd, and gave a lustre to the day. c1710 C. FIENNES Diary (1888) 257 Diamonds wch flamed at ye Least motion. 1740 DYER Ruins Rome 21 The rising sun Flames on the ruins. 1777 F. BURNEY Diary Oct., This..room was..flaming with velvet. 1807 W. IRVING Salmag. (1824) 133 Fling..a red shawl over the figure of a fashionable belle, and let her flame away with it in Broadway. 1826 SYD. SMITH Wks. (1859) II. 74 The mud is flaming with the scarlet curlew. 1882 EDNA LYALL Donovan xv, She felt the colour flame up in her cheeks. 1883 STEVENSON Silverado Sq. 15 The dentist..flamed forth in his second dress as a captain of banditti. 4. a. intr. To move as or like flame. 1633 P. FLETCHER Purple Isl. XI. iv, Those holy Fishers once amongs Thou flamedst bright with sparkling parted tongues. 1732 POPE Ess. Man II. 65 Meteor-like, flame lawless thro' the void. 1892 TENNYSON Death none 38 (Akbar's Dream) Once again thou flamest heavenward. b. trans. To send forth or convey by flaming. 14.. LYDG. Balade of our Ladie ix, Flambe down e doleful light of thyn influence. 1610 SHAKES. Temp. I. ii. 200 In euery Cabyn, I flam'd amazement: sometime I'ld diuide, And burne in many places. 1892 T. A. COOK Old Touraine I. 91 An old system of signalling by beacon fires..which flamed messages along the valley. 5. To burn, set on fire, consume with flames. Also fig. 1583 STANYHURST Æneis III. (Arb.) 79 Sundry hostes are flamed on altars. 1590 SPENSER F.Q. III. ix. 18 Malbecco seeing them resolvd..To flame the gates. 1612 N. FIELD Woman's a Weather-cock I. i, The Masculine Element of Fire Shall flame his Pyramids downe to the Earth. 1737 WHISTON Josephus' Antiq. Diss. III. xiii, Some were nailed to crosses, and others flamed to death. 1942 T. S. ELIOT Little Gidding i. 7 The brief sun flames the ice, on pond and ditches. 6. To cause to glow with enthusiasm. zeal, etc.; to kindle, inflame, excite, animate. Obs. c1380 WYCLIF Sel. Wks. III. 36 e swete odour erof schulde flawme mennys hertis. 1596 SPENSER F.Q. V. i. 14 Flam'd with zeal of vengeance inwardly, He ask'd [etc.]. 1627-77 FELTHAM Resolves I. xiv. 22 That sacred vigour which had wont..To flame the Poets noble brest. 1640 SHIRLEY Coronation II. Djb, Their courage is so nobly flamed. 7. To subject to the action of flame. Cf. Sc. FLAMB. 1875 Ure's Dict. Arts III. 88 After flaming, the pieces are successively laid on an inclined table exposed to the fire. 1885 DOLLEY Bacteria Investigation I. 69 The pipette is first thoroughly sterilized by flaming every portion of it. For the adjective "flaming," OED gives: "1. a. That flames; in flames or on fire, as a combustible; esp. in flaming sword. b. flaming chapel = F. chapelle ardente: a chapel or chamber thickly set with lighted tapers. c. flaming onions, an anti-aircraft projectile consisting of about ten balls of fire shot upwards in succession, so called from its resemblance to a string of onions (see also quot. 1943). Services' slang. 2. a. Burning hot, inflamed, fiery. b. quasi-adv., as flaming-hot. lit. and fig. c. Used euphemistically for a profane epithet. Also as adv. 3. transf. a. Emitting rays of light, flashing, glowing, brilliant. flaming fly = FIREFLY. b. in regard to colour: Resembling flame, very bright or vivid. c. Of a person: Gaudy, 'loud', flaring. 4. fig. a. Highly coloured, highflown; startling, extravagant. b. flaming youth [Shakes. Ham. III. iv. 84]: a collective term for young persons, alluding to their characteristically vigorous and unrestrained behaviour or ways. Chiefly U.S. 5. Flagrant, glaring, monstrous. ? Obs. 6. Like waving flame in appearance; flamboyant. Hence flamingly adv." I seem to recall some discussion of these issues in George Lakoff's 1987 book from University of Chicago Press, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind To use the metaphor of "flaming" would likely have been carried forward to Internet slang without regard to other factors. The proximate historical connections are interesting, but they, too, are related to the foundational metaphors. Long before the era of computer-mediated communications, visual metaphors in still or animated cartoons and movies featured angry characters that turned red. They exploded into rage with steam-whistle sounds and visual effects ranging from volcano-like eruptions and bursting valves to exploding thermometers. For that matter, the intemperate and hotheaded Johnny Storm often did the same, with predictable effects on the villains who incurred his fiery wrath. 3) Flames today It may only be my sense of things, but I observe that flame wars are less common now than in the past. In contrast, heated scholarly debate continues, as it has done since the days of the first journals and learned publications. "If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames." -- I Corinthians 3:15 Best regards - or should I say, rather, "Warmest wishes," - Ken -- Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Technology and Knowledge Management Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University
On a lighter note, take a look at "The Flame to End All Flames" at http://users.gurulink.com/drk/humor/flame.html . This flaming as a performing art.......Alex Alex.Kuskis@utoronto.ca
At 21.47 +0100 02-01-13, Ken Friedman scrobe:
1) A tip of the hat to Mickey Waxman
Thanks for brining the Fantastic Four into the thread. Johnny Storm used to shout, "Flame On." His companions were Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Girl, and The Thing.
Yup. Loved that. Just the sort of culture the original inhabitants of Netville were into. Could someone just complement this great info (for us without an encyclopedic knowledge of the Shows) with WHEN, that would be nice-and-kind.
3) Flames today It may only be my sense of things, but I observe that flame wars are less common now than in the past.
I don't know - inspired by Danyel Fisher I did some quick searches at the Google newsgroups archives (what a goldmine!) and flaming seems to be alive and well in newsgroups (so my guess is that you, like me, don't frequent them a lot).
In contrast, heated scholarly debate continues, as it has done since the days of the first journals and learned publications.
Yes. That's an interesting genre of "flaming", if and when it is such. I mean, there's a rule against ad hominem attacks in scholarly debate, but, I'd say that since scholars have so much at stake in the ideas they marry with their scholar's honor, there's plenty of scope for "personal" attack by sophisticated means (like those suggested by Cristian). At 11.08 -0600 02-01-13, Nancy Baym gave us a neat reference to Lea et. al:
flaming is normative rather than medium-caused, and that flaming is probably no more common online than off but that people think it is because it is more _visible_ online than off (and they offer a number of compelling reasons this is so). I haven't seen a better piece on the topic than this one...
Hmm... I wonder if I can get hold of this.
They argue a number of things, including that there is no good definition
Well, that is a wise thing to state in something to be published in a book and put on a library shelf! On the other hand I think that for a discussion like this it might be useful to have even a bad definition as a coordinating reference point. And your "best so far" is not bad at all:
name calling, swearing, insults, impolite statements, threats and put-downs, crude flirtations of a demeaning or sexually explicit nature, and attacks on groups or individuals
= flaming on the Net will be conflict carried out by linguistic means as above, Net conflict carried out by more elegant use of language will be something else, even if there is evidence of emotional involvement. Wow! We're almost reaching a conclusion here!!
I've always wanted to see a comparative analysis of flaming online vs. behind the wheel of a car. Talk about a medium that causes anonymity and hostility! I'll take computers over cars any day!
Well, I already did: I don't drive. But... don't blame the car, blame city traffic. I'd dare say that inter-driver culture on the roads of Northern Sweden is a lot friendlier than on the city streets of Stockholm. Varma Hälsningar Eva Ekeblad
Boy, ask a simple question and get a bevy of great stuff!
At 14.48 -0800 02-01-14, robert m. tynes scrobe:
Boy, ask a simple question and get a bevy of great stuff!
The simpler the question, the better :-)
From Eva *quoting Nancy* and adding her own two öre:
re definitions of flaming ...
"best so far" is not bad at all
name calling, swearing, insults, impolite statements, threats and put-downs, crude flirtations of a demeaning or sexually explicit nature, and attacks on groups or individuals
= flaming on the Net will be conflict carried out by linguistic means as above, Net conflict carried out by more elegant use of language will be something else, even if there is evidence of emotional involvement.
I like this. Does anyone else want to modify, or propose what's missing?
Or is the topic exhausted? Even so, I think we have actually reached something of a conclusion this time!!!
I'm especially fascinated by the conflict-as-essential-group formation concept, first mentioned on aoir by Nancy White, I think. Theory-man Georg Simmel comes to mind.
Yes. This is good. Though my own particular interest might be towards the perceptual -experiential -emotional dynamics of individuals and collectives.
So what's going on in a "flame"?
Crossing unspoken netiquette boundaries
Snipping here so as not to exceed my quota. Yes. I would say that flaming makes visible where the boundaries of a particular group-as-community ARE - where exactly they are and will be is of course under contest in any episode of flaming. So where there is flame there is not only heat but also (flickering) light! I would not frame this in terms of mental maps (but let's not debate that ;-) - but I really like the idea of regarding flaming (or electronic group dynamics in general) in terms of feedback systems. Well, what you're saying there is pretty much what I said above, about light being thrown on where the boundaries of group norms are and will be.
To flame is to cross into someone else's territory, possibly to lay claim to their discursive body. Hence, the name-calling and character assasinating and sexual text-groping.
That's a very inspirational way of putting it, when you're interested in how participation in text-based groups meshes into the rest of our lives. You're right that the rhetorical features of flaming constitute sallies into the textual territory of targeted contributors. So pushing the boundaries of group norms is, in the case of flaming, a skirmish about the rules for internal division of the textual space of the group! This can be made very concrete in quite simple terms by studying things like the distribution of posting frequency between contributors.
Of course, flaming is deemed "bad" and abusive. But is that because it causes real, measurable harm, or is it because it breaks with the traditional Western Socratic rational dialogue form?
Well, it can of course be debated whether a shift in posting frequency from one definable group to another is a case of harm. But I don't think it would be rare to find that such changes are the result of outbursts of flaming. I'm not so sure that flaming always breaks with "traditional Western Socratic rational dialogue form", either. In my personal experience there is often a quite strong link between a rationalist rhetoric and features of flaming - like Ken reminded us, the tradition of scholarly debate contains a lot of heat. In less scholarly electronic group contexts (like the SFF lists I've been on for fun) it usually has the effect of a flame when participants get into a rationalist mode, dissecting the logic of targeted postings. In less playful contexts I have observed that there is a type of contributor whose textual tactics involve a heavy use of rational argument and logical analysis, spiked with the occasional employment of more overt flaming features. The effect is very pernicious. (I'm discussing with my shrink why I am so personally vulnerable when confronted with this strategy ;-) Fortunately the fullblown tokens of this type are fairly infrequent. Less than one-in-every-list. But I have certainly encountered more than one. Hoping we're not exhausting the air-l participants before we exhaust the topic! Eva Ekeblad
In order to refine/re-morph our *flaming* definition a bit more(focusing in on motivations), I'd like to offer this query: When is the following (see below) a flame, a typo, gibberish, or a joke? a.)o(i.r. -Robert Tynes
robert m. tynes wrote:
In order to refine/re-morph our *flaming* definition a bit more(focusing in on motivations), I'd like to offer this query:
When is the following (see below) a flame, a typo, gibberish, or a joke?
a.)o(i.r.
it depends a bit, but i would say this is a joke, changing the 'o' to an asterix and keeping the inverted parentheses would have been a flame to me or could have generated a flame from me, because that has certain meanings in certain arenas that I am familiar. Of course the above might have other meanings in different contexts that I am not familiar with and could generate a flame from others. I think that sometimes we might be thinking of flaming in a negative context though, it can be, but really for some it is a highly polished artform which has a variety of social purposes. It takes a certain skill with words to generate an applicable insult, and that should be appreciated for what it is sometimes, but also it can be appreciated as a way of normalizing a channel or newsgroup, etc.
-Robert Tynes
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
-- jeremy hunsinger http://www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy cddc/political science http://www.cddc.vt.edu 526 major williams hall 0130 http://www.dromocracy.com virginia tech -under construction blacksburg, va 24061 540-231-7614
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
I think that sometimes we might be thinking of flaming in a negative context though, it can be, but really for some it is a highly polished artform which has a variety of social purposes. It takes a certain skill with words to generate an applicable insult, and that should be appreciated for what it is sometimes, but also it can be appreciated as a way of normalizing a channel or newsgroup, etc.
I'm with Jeremy. I'd also add that the existence of a full-throttled flamewar can be evidence of an online environment's maturity. It takes a certain amount of committment (not to mention energy!) to flame. david silver http://faculty.washington.edu/dsilver/
Jeremy:
I think that sometimes we might be thinking of flaming in a negative context though, it can be, but really for some it is a highly polished artform which has a variety of social purposes. It takes a certain skill with words to generate an applicable insult, and that should be appreciated for what it is sometimes, but also it can be appreciated as a way of normalizing a channel or newsgroup, etc.
David:
I'm with Jeremy. I'd also add that the existence of a full-throttled flamewar can be evidence of an online environment's maturity. It takes a certain amount of committment (not to mention energy!) to flame.
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree, at least slightly. Yes, it's a sign of some sort of emotional or social commitment. But there are well-crafted, intelligent flames, and there are measly, dippy flames which indicate some sort of breakdown of normal social controls and constraints. Jeremy, your view is a little utopian. Yes, there are artistic, even elegant flames that neatly defuse an argument while manically ranting about the state of the world. But there are also flames that are simply obnoxious, off-the-cuff responses to a message that is irritating. Some have suggested it's a sign of over-maturity: as a group gets older, it has a choice of strengthening social controls--having, for example, a corps of people who can quickly send off-list responses to inappropriate posters, perhaps even people who are willing to force cancel messages, to get rid of objectionable content--or to degenerate into flame war. Presented, for your approval, the first few hits on a Google Groups search for idiot (god, I *love* that service[1]).... ----------------------------------------------- http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fjf44usql02u1mobg146kitkeiqdlsdm3g%404a x.com [rec.sport.pro-wrestling] "You can't read can you? No where in his post does he confuse you with a simpsons character. Look at the name of the guy he was replying to, his name is Krusty, not the doctor of shit. You really are an attention seeking little baby, now you're imagining people are talking about you when they are talking about someone else. All you did prove was that the bigger idiot in the subject header was yourself." http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9n1lec%245b9%240%40dosa.alt.net and "brainless" http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=R2sr4.7034%24bz2.1320683%40tw12.nn.bcan did.com [misc.health.alternative] *** Because magnets had a 100% FAILURE rate makes me "brainless?" Remember you called everyone who tries this alt.stuff *BRAINLESS.* Are you going to call my 3 friends who were silly enough to try magnets *BRAINLESS* too? Perhaps you're BRAINLESS and need a head transplant to make you HONEST? Now there's an idea!!!! :o) http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=81fqj3%243rc%241%40nnrp1.deja.com [soc.culture.algeria] Your little post suggests to me that you are a brainless creature who knows shit. You made me a jew and an anti sematic, arabist and anti arab, Amazigh and anti Amazigh. All this khalouta in one post. Do you see my point, brainless bou ass? Think, my little brainless ---------------------------- [1] Sorry, danah. http://www.danah.org/idcontrol/stopgoogle.html
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree, at least slightly. Yes, it's a sign of some sort of emotional or social commitment. But there are well-crafted, intelligent flames, and there are measly, dippy flames which indicate some sort of breakdown of normal social controls and constraints.
I agree. But the question here is "to whom do they appear dippy, and why?" what norms are constructed, etc?
Jeremy, your view is a little utopian. Yes, there are artistic, even elegant flames that neatly defuse an argument while manically ranting about the state of the world. But there are also flames that are simply obnoxious, off-the-cuff responses to a message that is irritating.
actually they can be the same thing from different perspectives/audiences, but nonetheless they have some merit in either case I think. It is easy to see that flames serve some sort of function though and it is not always negative to either the group, the writer, or the recipient, and that was my sole point. -- jeremy hunsinger http://www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy cddc/political science http://www.cddc.vt.edu 526 major williams hall 0130 http://www.dromocracy.com virginia tech -under construction blacksburg, va 24061 540-231-7614
participants (7)
-
Alex Kuskis -
Danyel Fisher -
david silver -
Eva Ekeblad -
jeremy hunsinger -
Ken Friedman -
robert m. tynes