190 lines
7.6 KiB
Plaintext
190 lines
7.6 KiB
Plaintext
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! |