tiberio (01/20/83)
it could be that some folks just think they are getting a flame when the sender had no such intention. i have literally gotten into wars via e.m. for what ultimately seems to be no reason. someone mentioned that it is the spoken not written language that is used on the net, i agree, but with no facial expressions to back it up the spoken language is easily misinterpreted. also since people cannot alternate sentences (at best we alternate paragraphs) there is no real dialogue. without immediate feedback it is difficult to clear up misinterpretations which lead to flames if the flaming party view the misinterpretations as ommisions. case in point, recently i submitted an article to net.med about x-rays and vdt's. i recieved what might be called flames saying vdt's have been shown to give off no x-rays, that the voltage was insufficient to produce x-rays, etc. as it turns out i meant to include in the term vdt's more than just vt-100's and adm-5's but things like our monochrome megatek 7000 (vector refresh with no doubt a mutha of an electron gun and deflection magnets, puts out enough btu's to heat a hanger) and our color megatek 7250. i don't know who was `wrong' but it's easy to see how flames get started. has anyone formalize the funniness of `dialogue' via electronic mail?