What Is A Flame?
 

As this is not directly connected to any of the issues being discussed right now, but is a very important question that needs to be answered. I decided to make it a separate thread.

A flame will be removed by the mods. Repeated flaming will result in banning the poster. So it is important to know just what a flame is.

Is it something which the poster meant with bad intent? Is it something which the recipient considers an insult? Is it something which the moderator sees as being negative?

If you call me a "Communist", I will consider myself flamed. My girlfriend, a member of the Italian Communist Party, would not.

Indeed, years ago the courts decided that it is not libelous to call someone a communist, even if he is not. That decision was the result, in part, of an amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Communist Pary. They held that if it is libelous to call someone a communist, then the courts are saying that being a communist is bad.

Today, an OMNI post was edited by the mods because a poster had referred to IJK (another poster) as "Islamic Jihad Kid".

I would be furious if someone were to imply that I support Islamic Jihad. I do not know how IJK feels about this. He has consistently taken a pro-Arab position on every Israeli-Arab thread. I don't recall him ever condemning Arab terrorism. It is possible that he would not see being identified with Islamic Jihad as an insult.

Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that IJK does not see it as insulting. The poster obviously meant it as an insult -- so is that enough to make it a flame? If IJK is proud of this identification, is it still a flame?

Conversely, let's assume that a self-proclaimed Nazi were to misread some post that I made and feel that I am a kindred soul. He then calls me a "Nazi" -- which he feels is a high compliment. He had no intention at all of flaming me, but I am disgusted at the very thought of it. Have I been flamed?

In a third hypothetical situation, John calls Bill a homosexual. The moderator feels this is insulting and removes it. John and Bill, however, are both homosexuals and neither one sees anything wrong with it. Is it a flame simply because the moderator sees it as one?



[This message has been edited by Dovster (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

Dovster, you know your above argument has some grain of intellectual partisanship and is not transparently honest in this situation. I say this because your comments starting this thread are actually connected to many of the issues being discussed here right now. But now onto this matter:

Knowingly calling someone a terrorist when they are not is a lie.

Knowingly calling someone a nazi when they are not is a lie.

Knowingly calling someone a homosexual when they are not is a lie.

When one is knowingly trying to pin a label that they know to be more likely a lie than the truth, and when it is not done in jest, then it is a "flame". You can play creatively with denotative meanings of a word, but when you play creatively with connotative meanings of a label such that said label may wrongfully ruin someone's reputation on unsubstantiated bases, that is a "flame".

I stand by the moderators in the case of ap2110's attack on IJK. If IJK does not see at as an attack, then well and good; but it's still a personal attack in my book; and its an attack meant to inhibit debate -- and that's why I truly stand with the moderators on this one.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

Agreed. They are all lies.

Logically then, you would feel that if I do not believe it to be untrue, it is not a flame.

I don't know if I can agree with you about that. If you honestly believe that I am a racist, and call me one, I will still consider myself flamed.

As to your first point, I do not deny that I am posting this question now because of what has transpired. I did say it is not "directly" connected. None of the circumstances I mentioned were involved in my removed post.


[This message has been edited by Dovster (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

When a label is thrown out to stifle debate or to inhibit debate or discredit a party to the debate on false grounds by applying a label that the recipient and most truly neutral parties would reject, then that is a "flame".

This does not even require the "obscenity test" of I know it when I see it.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

I can not argue with that position at all. It does, however, still leave some questions unanswered.

If the recipient does not reject it, but it meets all the other requirements, is it still a flame?

In the situation I cited re IJK, let us assume (and again, this is an assumption for argument's sake only) that IJK does not reject the Islamic Jihad label. Is it still a flame? After all, the poster is still trying to discredit him.

Let's assume that I call you a Communist but am not trying to stifle debate. In fact, I am trying to stimulate it by making you defend your position. I am lying about you, but is it still a flame?

In both above instances it could be considered a flame and personal attack.. but it is for the person or persons being labelled with the perjorative label who should weigh in on such matters of it being a "flame" or "non-flame". After all, it's their reputation on the line and to have their reputation sullied with false labels is like telling someone they are guilty until proven innocent.

PS. Calling me a communist would be a joke. I love money and personalized financial returns way too much. I, like most of us on FT, like building up our frequent flier mileage bank accounts and getting "elite" status and "benefits". Nothing socialistic about that. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

With this point, you made me realize what prompted to me start this thread. I think it had been in the back of my mind and you just brought it forward.

Flaming is not as dangerous as it might seem. The person being flamed is not the one who is injured -- the person who does the flaming is.

When ftomnibox wrote about me that "Calling people ragheads, terrorists, or murderers is hate speech and is against the TOS...OMNI is not a forum for spewing hatred and right-wing ideology. Freerepublic.com is the place for that if one is a neanderthal", I did not respond.

A number of people came to my defense. Ftomnibox was the one who was looked down upon, not me.

Indeed, had my post not been removed, I would never have entered that thread at all.

If I were to write that "GUWonder is a miserable Commie ratfink," I would (rightfully) find the wrath of most FTers upon my head. Nobody would think less of you, only of me.

Yet if my post were to be removed, I would be free to post elsewhere without people knowing what kind of person I am.

Isn't it better to keep the posts, allow the readers to decide if it is a flame, and to have them answer the flamer?

An attempt to flame, I would say. Both insult and provocation are required for that gambit to "materialize." In any event, this is not Usenet, and the jargon term is perhaps better eschewed entirely.

Then again, I'm geezer enough that I still consider "newbie" to be a barbarous neologism.

Its all documented pretty clearly here: http://www.flyertalk.com/rules, under the section "Actions That Will Compel FlyerTalk Intervention".

Having said that, each forum has its own "intervention threshold". Some of what you've illustrated may be acceptable in one forum, but not another. Premptive action is always a judgement call by the moderator. A complaint from a member makes will alway cause investigation...

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

Searching the posts of IJK, one will find an overwhelming positon of pro-Arab and pro-Muslim taken. This in itself does not make one an Islmic Jihad Kid, but on deeper evaluation of his comments, I do wonder. Notice his reaction to being labeled this back in December on two separate threads - silence. If he was offended and considered it a flame, the least he could have done is called attention to it. Before I posted my deleted comments about IJK, I reviewed his comments over the last few months and based on his posts and attempting to provide an opportunity for him to directly defend his positons, I determined my comments were justified. This was not allowed since my post was deleted.

On another note, but indirectly related, it is rather interesting that my "raghead" thread is allowed to remain but my post calling IJK an Islamic Jihad Kid was deleted.

For the third time this week I'll explain my motives for leaving your "raghead" thread in it's closed state; when only a small portion of a thread contains flames or other TOS violations (like the thread Dovster is referring to) we will edit the offending portions, we do this to allow the other fellow members to continue posting to the thread as they often contain interesting comments, when the ENTIRE thread is a violation (like posting about "Raghead taxi drivers at LGA") then we'll close the entire thread.

Just to please you all, and after reading the 10th complaint about leaving that thread closed I have decided to delete it.

In my opinion this is the question. It is clearly censorship when a moderator edits another poster's comments. I'm not questioning their ability and authorization, but rather the wisdom. I can even understand the urge to edit as being concerned with further escalation devolving into chaos. I simply disagree with the method.

I'd much rather see the comments and decide for myself than wonder what was the kerfuffle all about. For example, the comments of ftomnibox are clearly a flame yet remain in two different threads for all to see. I'm fine with those comments still present as others can take a look at the record to see if they have any merit. It's when comments are removed that we cannot fairly judge. Further, the removal of some comments but not others really begins to distort the record.

Actually, that proves nothing. I was flamed by the moronic post from ftomnibox but did not call attention to it.

I felt that it was better to allow others to make their own minds up concerning him.

IJK's reaction to being associated with Islamic Jihad can not be determined by anyone except IJK.

Stop focussing on the "Islamic Jihad Kid" as being the only part of the flame, there was more to the post than just that. If we are going to complain about moderation let's at least do it honestly.

http://www.flyertalk.com/rules


"We" in this case is Randy and Randy's staff (which includes the Moderators).

Moderators have been asked in the past to do more "editing" than "closing" in an effort to keep an individual poster from closing down a productive thread with an off topic comment.

You agreed to abide by the TOS when you signed up.

------------------
Sean
aka: skofarrell
Moderator, OMNI & American Express

Scott, in this case I am NOT complaining about the moderation.

It is true that I would prefer to be allowed to see an offending letter and make up my mind about the offender, but I do not deny that under the current rules this was a TOS violation.

Sorry for me using the word "complain", thanks for your clarification.

When reviewing the whole of IJK's postings his positions are clear and rather appalling. Others may see my post as a flame but IJK may actually take it as a compliment. Allowing the post to remain would give IJK the benefit to state his postions and rebut my post if he so desires. If IJK opts not to respond, fine, we continue on.

Sean: I understand the rules issue; it is more an issue of consistency for me per my comments on ftomnibox.

I can appreciate the moderators while still offering my opinion and trust you understand my comments in that light. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

It would, perhaps, been clearer if I had not used actual examples in this thread (IJK and ftomnibox).

On the other hand, by being able to look at these two cases we can judge the issue at hand (what is a flame and how should it be handled) without going too far off into Never-Never Land.

Perhaps as perfect proof of what I have been saying, I just received a piece of hate mail from ftomnibox. In addition to his venom, he included the statement that "Even
Randy agrees with me that you're a worthless extremist who has no place on FT." To "prove" his point, he forwarded a letter sent to him by Randy.

If I had not been able to read Randy's letter myself, I might believe that Randy actually does agree with ftomnibox. But because it was attached, I was allowed to judge for myself what Randy was saying and saw no indication that Randy held any such opinion.

People should look in the mirror... it might help us learn that FT is not a place for intolerance and hate. I don't mean to bring this up here, but your application of the term "raghead" and advocacy of "genocide" would be appalling to a majority of the people in the world. It was, however, not a personal attack even if it was in poor taste. That is why IJK has a slightly higher moral ground than yourself.... for I have yet to see IJK advocate "genocide" or apply bigoted labels to a group of people based on birth. I could be wrong. I think the fact that IJK has not applied his terms to a specific individual (generally speaking) is why he may have not crossed the moderators in the same way.

Only Randy Petersen is not a forum for a politicized wing of FT members -- who, in net, are great contributors that I thoroughly enjoy to disagree with them vociferously -- to whine that they should be allowed to spew intolerance on the basis of sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, creed, and such.In some people's eyes (even if not mine), it may make FT and FT's owner look bad when the FT forum becomes a host and forum for intolerance. Combine that with personal attacks, and so far the moderators seem to be doing the right thing (even if for reasons that are not easily and well articulated). To expect perfection is to be disappointed.

How does FTOmnibox think that you are an extremist. You strike me (who disagrees with you on many an issue) as anything but an extremist. You may have positions that I consider in the wrong, but you yourself, are anything but an extremist. Some people have a fanciful imagination, FTOmnibox amongst them. Why cannot people stick to debating the ideas and concepts rather than debating people?

An old saying basically goes as follows: "The average person discusses events. The less-than-average person discusses people. And the above-average person discusses ideas." Keep this in mind when debating.

Dovster:
"Today, an OMNI post was edited by the mods because a poster had referred to
IJK (another poster) as 'Islamic Jihad Kid'. I would be furious if someone were to
imply that I support Islamic Jihad."


This is not the first time that my sequential three-letter 'FT handle' has been
referred to in this way.


See:

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/018283.html
(middle of page 5)

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/018405.html
(page 1)


In both cases, this was done by a poster that is presently not posting in OMNI
(probably due to several TOS violations), so I am curious if this poster is using
multiple handles to recently repeat the use of this very particular phrase - - or,
the recent misuse of my handle by a poster with another handle was inherited as
learned behavior?


I basically ignored the reference - - I initially said "Very funny.", which it was,
in a way (showed some cleverness), and ignored it subsequently. However,
the non-response dictated by the FT TOS to type of thing may have implied that
I accepted this 'name' as somehow being representative, or even complementary.

I wish to indicate that this is not the case.


Dovster:
"I do not know how IJK feels about this. He has consistently taken a pro-Arab position
on every Israeli-Arab thread. I don't recall him ever condemning Arab terrorism. It is
possible that he would not see being identified with Islamic Jihad as an insult."


Well, I do find it troubling that this particular poster has chosen to ignore my
repeated statements lamenting the grip of the extremists in the Middle East in
prolonging and escalating the violence - - on both sides. There is no need to
characterize (or mis-characterize) my, or anyone else's, position, thoughts and/or
'who we really are'. (See the attempt at 'character assassination by implication'
of ChaseTheMiles by the same poster in the first thread above.)

And my supposed "pro-Arab position" has been characterized here only for the sake of
making the rhetorical argument of "what if they like what they are called - - is it OK
to call them something bad because they might like it?" (paraphrased), even though the
whole FT community would naturally interpret the label as offensive and in bad taste.

If the use of a label found offensive by the FT community is used as an "in" joke, then
it should not be used in this private manner in a public forum, or the subtext should be
explained for the benefit of all.


It is also interesting to note the subtle shift in context here, and in other posts by
the same person. I supposedly have "a pro-Arab position on every Israeli-Arab thread."

Well, I have a "pro-Palestinian" position in general (not universally), and a critical
position of Sharon and his career - - not a "pro-Arab" position, which would imply that
I support all sorts of other things, including potentially the attacks om 9/11. Personally,
I find this (possibly implied) extension as repugnant tactic, even if it may not have been
used deliberately here. If the term "Palestinian" is automatically thought of as "Arab"
by someone else, I am sorry, but that is a problem with whoever does this on a regular
basis.

As for all the "Israeli-Arab" threads, I do not recall participating in any discussions
regarding Israel and the Arab states, or the Arab world. But I do recall many threads
about the Israeli-Palestinian battle happening in the Middle East at the present though...


Dovster:
"Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that IJK does not see it as insulting.
The poster obviously meant it as an insult -- so is that enough to make it a flame?"


If the intent to insult is obvious to anyone (even though it was not interpreted as such
by the target), then why desacrate the FT community with what appear to be blazen and
obvious insults? If this is supposedly OK, posters will start to think that it is OK to start
flaming away...


Dovster:
"If IJK is proud of this identification, is it still a flame?"


Yes, to everyone else it is.

But why argue about hypthetical, rhetorical philosophic arguments? This is equivalent
to asking: "If a tree falls in the forest, but no-one is around to hear it, does it make
a sound?" Or perhaps this is just a way to subtly further malign someone's character
in the name of legitimate dabate about a valid question?

We should first discuss "What is a flame?" in a regular context, and then (if ever) discuss
special, rare or convoluted cases or arguments, without impuning any member's inner beliefs.


And at the present time, I am simply not going to respond to what ap2110 had to say.
.


[This message has been edited by IJK (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GUWonder: How does FTOmnibox think that you are an extremist. You strike me (who disagrees with you on many an issue) as anything but an extremist.

AP2110 had read IJK's posts and come to the conclusion that they are "appalling."

GUWonder has read posts from both AP2110 and IJK and determined that IJK has a slightly higher moral ground.

Ftomnibox has read posts from me and decided that I am an extremist.

GUWonder has read many of the same posts from me and came to the opposite conclusion.

We are able to make up our own minds only when we are given the opportunity to read what the other person says.

GUWonder:
"That is why IJK has a slightly higher moral ground than [ap2110]"


"Slightly" higher...

Should I be 'slighted' and take this as an insult, or as a compliment? :-)
(Even though it was somewhat back-handed...)

I can not tell you how he came to that conclusion. I can only tell you that he did. His exact words were:

Time for you to get off Flyertalk altogether. I am reading your constant whining on ORP, like any right wing bully you run for mama when you get your knuckles
rapped for offending everybody except your extremist cohorts. Like the addict Rush Limbaugh, you expect the ACLU to bail you out of the mess of your own making.

Take your apartheid musings someplace else! Even Randy agrees with me that you're a worthless extremist who has no place on FT. If you don't believe me, read the attached email he sent me this week.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the rear end on your way out.

I have no idea of who "mama" in this case is and certainly don't recall asking the ACLU to enter into any litigation on my behalf,
but in FTomnibox's fevered imagination that is the case. So be it.

Anyone who reads this thread is free to determine for himself whether FTomnibox is right.

I sent him a short response by e-mail: "I do not deal with cowards. Identify yourself and we will continue this conversation."

I do.

For the inconsistency issue: Had ftomnibox posted in OMNI (or any other "actively" moderated forum), the post would have been removed as it was clearly a post from a duplicate id. Since this forum is not "activley" moderated, it sadly remains.

The registration process for OMNI posting was put in place to prevent "sneak attacks" from the people that brought you 'ftomnibox'.

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

I think no less of JeffS because of ftomnibox's ramblings about him.

Whatever feelings you might have about me, I do not believe they are the result of what ftomnibox said.

The only person whose reputation has been hurt by ftomnibox is ftomnibox.

That is why I can not agree with your words "sadly remains".

Most FTers are intelligent people able to come their own conclusions. The more obnoxious a person is in his attempt to flame someone else, the more clear it becomes that he, not his target, is the one to be looked down upon.

I think that JeffS can join me in the proud knowledge that ftomnibox feels about us the way he does. After all, it is true that "you are known by the enemies that you have."

Well, IJK chooses not to respond to my "offensive" post; fine, we continue on. I doubt I would have ever brought it up again in that thread.

In light of this discussion and reviewing the rules again, I will reconsider my tactics and attempt to eliminate any "personal attacks" from my posts in the future.

I'm a bit sensiitve to the issue of duplicate accounts due to the fact that before the last OMNI closure we had a few of people that chose to use duplicate ids as a weapon for forum disruption. As such, I have no tolerence for the use of such a tool or any message that it might try to deliver.

That is a different issue and one with which I completely agree with you. It is the act of a coward.

Points for you and all of us who limit/eliminate personal attacks on FT. Can we say "rehabilitated" boys and girls? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

I don't know if it's the act of a coward... but it's the act of a non-constructive person who likes to have paper soldiers as allies. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I am glad you included "all of us." In a contextual review of my "genocide" statement and then pondering your insistence to discredit my positions with said word, I would presume you will also be "rehabilitating."



[This message has been edited by ap2110 (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

Most certainly... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif I will even downplay your use of the word genocide henceforth. Your use of the word "raghead"? I don't know about that one... still making a determination. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif I am still trying to find a context where racial slurs are appropriate ... and I hope I never do.

Let's see if it is or not.

My full name is Dov Ben-Galil. I live in Yiron, Israel. I post under the nick of "Dovster".

I will be in Fort Lauderdale in May and will be willing to meet, in person, any FT member.

FTOmnibox says that he is reading the ORP threads. Therefore, I presume he is reading this. I challenge him to come out of hiding and provide information about himself equivalent to what I posted in the previous two paragraphs.

Ok... but what does identity have to do with debate? I say is has little or nothing to do with debate since there are plenty of examples in journalistic history where unnamed sources do add value. Positive identification has little to do with security -- if you check a person for dangerous items and/or a quick intent check (even if impossible to truly conduct) -- and it has little to do with debate (unless one is looking to be lazy in filtering or understanding or responding to a situation or, in this case, a debate).

We are seeing a lot of false starts in this thread. What is the fundamental issue -- is it identity, is it derogatory labels/speech, is it perceived unfairness in treatment? Identify the fundamental issue and let's stick to it.

An irrelevant distinction in my opinion.

Personally, I may [in fact do] find many if not most of your posts "appalling" if not merely frustratingly two-dimensional in their presentation. If I [we] were to use your line of reasoning above then I would be justified, based on my personal "evaluation" of your posting history, to label you something like [for the sake of argument] "a Hitler loving, kitten drowning fascist."

It should be apparent to all [I hope] that such an example and such a response is completely unacceptable.

I fail to see why this is even an issue.

If Anrkitec were to post such a response it would, exactly as he said, be apparent to all that it is completely unacceptable.

But if Anrkitec were to post that response and it were to be removed by a moderator, nobody would be able to judge, for himself, the acceptability of what Anrkitec said.

If Anrkitec (or GUWonder, IJK, Dovster or anyone else) is to be judged fairly by members of OMNI they must be able to see his postings for themselves.

Tomorrow, I might post something saying, "AP2110, you are being foolish." A moderator could determine that I have flamed AP2110 and remove the post. Many readers might consider it to be a very mild flame. Others might well not see any flame in it at all and agree with me.

On the other hand, I could post exactly what Anrkitec said and call AP2110 "a Hitler loving, kitten drowning fascist." In this case, almost all FTers would decide I had gone way overboard and hold me in contempt.

If the moderators delete all such posts, how are those who don't see them supposed to be able to judge?

Let me repeat what I said earlier: I don't believe that anyone's reputation is damaged by being flamed -- only by being the flamer.

Unintentionally, by taking the flame out, we are protecting the flamer and no one else.