werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (05/03/86)
I would like a clarification of the usage of the word 'flame' from
the UUCP squad squad.
Does the correct usage of the word 'flame' encompass both a public
diatribe and a private criticism, or does it just have the narrower meaning
of the former, public, use.
To rephrase the question: is it possible to flame by mail, or does
by definition, a flame require a posting. (Admittedly a private critique
can be just as sizzling as a public one, but is it correct to call it a flame.)
Please respond by mail.
--
Craig Werner
!philabs!aecom!werner
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"The proper delivery of medical care is to do as much Nothing as possible"rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (05/07/86)
[] Everyone knows that "flame" comes from the fact that whatever the source, when committed to paper the words raise the surface temperature to Fahrenheit 451. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
ingrid@pilchuck.UUCP (the Real Swede) (05/10/86)
E-mail being the totally contrived language that it is, I vote for the definition of a flame as being ANY ABUSIVE CORRESPONDENCE WHICH APPEARS ON EITHER THE UNIX SYSTEM, OR IN A PERSON'S PERSONAL MAIL. And flame my grammar all you like; I write for a LIVING. I can "relax" on the net if I wish to......
barmar@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Barry Margolin) (05/13/86)
The term flame is not necessarily tied to news or even electronic
communication. At MIT (where this use of the term may have originated),
we often talked about flaming in person. Anyone arguing excessively was
considered to be flaming. It didn't have to be insulting, nor did it
even have to be directed at anyone in particular.
I suspect that this use originated because a person who was arguing was
getting hot and bothered. Later, the transitive version of the term
came into use, because a flamer could be directing his flames (like a
flame thrower), so you could "flame at" someone.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmareric@chronon.UUCP (05/17/86)
In article <1953@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: > >The term flame is not necessarily tied to news or even electronic >communication. At MIT (where this use of the term may have originated), >we often talked about flaming in person. Anyone arguing excessively was >considered to be flaming. It didn't have to be insulting, nor did it >even have to be directed at anyone in particular. > >I suspect that this use originated because a person who was arguing was >getting hot and bothered. Later, the transitive version of the term >came into use, because a flamer could be directing his flames (like a >flame thrower), so you could "flame at" someone. I'd like to point out that we also awarded (at least we did 10 years ago) the "Asbestos Cork Award" to the most deserving flaming a**hole... I concur with the hot-and-bothered (rather than insulting/attacking) origin. -- Eric Black "Garbage In, Gospel Out" UUCP: {sun,pyramid,hplabs,amdcad}!chronon!eric