Date:         Sun, 10 May 1998 23:57:55 EDT
From: Occam's Razor splitting the difference? <mbarker@MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: [WRITERS] FILLER: Split the person and the position (was:
              Spreading
              Discord)

Susannah <susannah@THEGRID.NET> asked:
:) Will someone please define the difference between flame and argument?
:) What's wrong with a good argument?

Okay, I'll take a crack at breaking this egg...not that this is
necessarily the definitive version, but...

I think the main difference lies in how we treat the others in the
exchange.

In a "good argument," there is room for the other person to make a few
points, to win some points.  And when there is a conclusion, it is
possible for all concerned to shake hands and "make up."

Flame attacks, on the other hand, require that the other person be
obliterated, that they be personally destroyed.  Frankly, winning
isn't necessary in a flame battle, merely overshouting, vilifying,
destroying, and otherwise grinding the other into silence...  when
there is a conclusion to a flame battle, there are very few people
left to do anything, let alone talking to each other.

I guess I would say that in argument, one assumes that the other
person is "honorable" in some senses.  In flamage, one simply intends
to destroy.

[There's a tickle in the skull somewhere that suggests there may be a
difference in the role of the audience, also, but I'll let someone
else develop that nuance--or nuisance?]

I should probably avoid speculating about the personal security and
insecurities behind each approach, although it may be obvious that I
consider "good argument" as useful, even beneficial...

tink