[Air-l] Following the flaming discussion...

[Cristian Berrio]

Within all the possible versions of flame wars, seems to me that we lack a 
clear definition of the phenomum, so it is easy to extend and extend without 
reaching clear conclusions.

E-mail has the rare ability of producing the sensation of being "anonimus" 
and at the same time, reaching people with enough speed to keep a 
"conversation" flowing. It is clear that we say things through mail that we 
would never say face-to-face. But this element is common to any interacting 
activity via mail so, shall we focus on verbal aggresion? Must we fragment 
the problem including also graphic aggression?(icons, photos, signs)

Aggresive notes can be made through elegant use of the languaje or directly 
flooding with blaming and coursing all the message. Some languajes and 
nationalities are richer in insults or their citizens are more easy on the 
use of cousing.

In the end as you can see, the topic keeps opening and opening to an 
unlimited axpectrum of possible variables that are acting within the 
communication. You want to make it even more complex? Make a sense and 
symbol analysis of the communications; semiology have so many things to say. 
Even the synthax element can count as "non verbal" element that may drive to 
interesting situations into this communications.

I feel we may have richer approaches if we can define more the problem of 
the flame and what elements are present there.

Saludos

Cristian Berrio



_________________________________________________________________
Hable con sus amigos en línea, pruebe MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.es