register |  login
› PARKER
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
Blog
Blog Entry 38 of 49 Barry Manilow's Wardrobe
Fans of the 1985 masterpiece about teenage angst, "The Breakfast Club", know that John Bender did have one question for Principal Vernon. To those who have never seen the movie, well, I recommend it. If you get past the title, you may find something in this blog that strikes a familiar chord in your life--something for which to cheer. You may find something worthy of a jeer. Either way, a chord has been plucked, and that’s the most I can hope for. If you find neither---or worse, disappointment---I follow the creed of Aspen's own, the late Hunter S. Thompson: Never apologize, never explain.

Blog Url: http://denver.yourhub.com/~ManilowsWardrobe

Burn, baby, burn

Contributed by: Rob Guthrie   on 10/7/2006

It is a flame which sinks for lack of fuel.
~Pierre Corneille

The Internet, while a powerful and revolutionary tool, is also a cesspool into which the choice to dive should necessitate at least some forethought and a lot of trepidation (particularly as our children climb up to the springboard). The anonymity affords its patrons with a lot of leeway. The sleazy can ooze without detection, potential daters can be anyone they want to be, and many lurkers who probably spend their days having the proverbial sand kicked in their face, can man-up and grow a pair, courtesy of several miles of ether-buffer.

My teenage son considers himself an Internet veteran of sorts, but I know better. He's yet to run into many of the internetwork's most inglorious inhabitants. One in particular pales in comparison to some of the more truly dangerous Netizens, but is nonetheless a thorny, annoying little bugger, much like the sandbur or the bedbug.

This Internet Degenerate is, of course, The Flamer.

No, I am not making a calloused, flippantly derogatory reference to a person and their amorous choosings. I am talking about those who flame. From Wikipedia:

"Flaming is the act of sending or posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board on the Internet."

One of the things I have found enjoyable about the pages at YourHub.com is the fact that, for the most part, the blogs are fairly flame-free. This is not to say there is no controversy or spirited discussion (e.g. one recent, limited skirmish on the subject of conspiracy theories).

I have always believed debate is crucial to any intellectual society as it causes (or should cause) both sides to think. I have also always believed even more fervently in every individual's right to have an opinion and to express it freely. It is part of the bedrock upon which this great country was founded.

Unfortunately, when you declare yourself a defender of free speech, you don't get to limit discussions to insult-free, intellectual debate only. If a person wants to tell you your mother wears Army boots, well, you don't have to like it (even if your mother wears paratrooper gear and wears it proudly)---but to avoid the brand of hypocrisy, you should still stand up for the rights of the uttering party to, uh, well, utter.

Most recently I reposted a personal diatribe directed at a celebrity figure ( Stephen King). In my own semi-rant, I stated the fact that, for quite a long time, King was one of my inspirations. It would be wrong to state that he was not still (people who once inspired you are still one of your inspirations, whether you like it or not, I suppose). I also admitted I was bitter. I then went on to explain my bitterness. I was not upset that Stephen King was a successful writer, or that I thought it not to be his right to be curmudgeonly, only that I felt if he was going to be part of an advertised evening of meeting and greeting, from which he'd be taking his cut of the $300 per head, that he should be more gracious. For an hour out of his day.

I didn't request to meet King---his meeting with the public was advertised by his own publicists, at a hefty price tag. See, another thing I love about this country is capitalism. Stephen King has the right to sell me a new hardcover book at $20 and change, quality of said book as yet undetermined, but there should at the very least be print inside. It would be litigious to sell me 1000 blank pages for my money. Ergo, if a man is going to accept money to meet and greet, he should actually acquiesce to meet and greet.

But I digress. This matter is no longer about Stephen King, or any other bestselling author. It is about zee flamer. That unique breed who, no matter the subject, no matter the debate, must always include at least some tidbit of personal attack. This technique has always fascinated me. I imagine a political debate, were flaming to become part of the discourse:

CANDIDATE ONE: I believe the Social Security system is teetering on the brink of failure and I am afraid there won't be any sustenance for our generation when they retire and need it most.

CANDIDATE TWO: You couldn't get laid in a mattress factory.

So we might ask ourselves who are these flamers, these lurkers on the fringe of honest discussion about the issues? There are many theories, some of which probably have their place, depending on the situation. I happen to have my pet theory, which is perhaps best voiced by, again, Wikipedia:

"It is reasonable to consider that some forms of flaming can be attributed to deeper social or psychological weaknesses, probably from lack of exposure to a broader spectrum of disciplines that result in self-control issues."

In a nutshell, many flamers attack personally because they have confidence issues. They project. They flame because it's all they have in their arsenal.

Otherwise, there would be constructive debate or---perish the thought---intellectual discourse.

As I mentioned earlier, I enjoy YourHub, at least in part, because it has yet to be infected with the pedantic and sophomoric flame wars. Still, it seems lately (possibly with the inevitable increase in the Hub's popularity) there are more and more back-and-forth skirmishes that are exploding into the ALL CAPS TITLES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF DEFAMATION. As well, there are more and more of what I call the One-Star Personal Attacks.

I will say one positive thing about the One-Star Personal Attackers:

They are more intelligent than their Zero-Star Personal Attacker brethren. Giving one-star actually affects the blogger's overall rating. Right or wrong, it's a nice, vaguely satisfying little dig.

The only other thing I will say about the One-Star commenter:

Step up from the ranks of 130-word commenter on other's works and contribute something. Put the writing where the mouth is.

I've noticed a trend, as have others, that One-Star Personal Attackers tend to be pretty quiet when it comes to putting their own pens to the paper. Easy to poke out at the rest of the world, but not so easy to put together their own body of work (even in an environment of essentially no constraint, other then PG-rated good taste...come to think of it, poor taste doesn't necessarily disqualify either). But, as in many walks of society, there are the players---win and lose---and those who stand on the sidelines and complain.

The reality is, some of these "attacks" are pretty tame, nothing like the worst out there. This would include my first brush up against any kind of fire on the Hub. I've seen much worse, even around here---it was an extremely small dose, in some circles known as pixie-flame. Not much to get upset about, really. Using a photo as part of an argument, calling the blogger's grin "cheesy", and questioning whether he has a wife, doesn't register very high on the old flame-o-meter. Besides, dude got it all wrong:

It's my moustache that's cheesy.


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above blog



Current Rating
Based on 10 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the blog

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

Showing 1-8 of 8 comments
Submitted By: Tyler Braddy
posted on 10/18/2006 @ 7:24:13 PM
Rated Blog Entry
So, then, calling a writer a solipsistic hack is considered intellectual discourse? How can you say that someone can't involve himself in a subject without imbuing it with personal attack, when you use the last paragraph of your blog to attack someone? Well, let's consult Wikipedia: Passive-aggressive - Sometimes a method of dealing with stress or frustration, it results in the person attacking other people in subtle, indirect, and seemingly passive ways. Sound familiar? And, for the record, I wasn't aware that blogging about how cool Halloween is was considered "hard." If so, then I applaud all of the people out there willing to risk using phrases like "monikers are a-plenty" in public. Maybe "zee flamers" can have as much to say in their own blogs, if they're ever brave enough to have them. There's nothing worse than an overblown, self-aggrandizing blogger. But, of course, I'm not talking about you.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Rob Guthrie
posted on 10/14/2006 @ 8:45:47 AM
Rated Blog Entry
No apology necessary; my feelings were not hurt. The blog wasn't for or about you, so your honored feeling, if not sarcastic, would be premature. Self-deprecating comments are different than those used by a stranger voicing an opinion. Your argument was made weaker and less readable by inserting reactionary tones. I agree, yours could hardly even be called a flame, but it caused me to want to write about the phenomenon in general. I don’t care about the star rating. I have said I love intellectual debate. This is because I value the principle of “the more information, the better”. Unfortunately inserting non sequitur comments about a writer having or not having a wife or using phrases like "what a crock" or "get over yourselves" wastes space and, worse, devalues the message with unnecessary emotion. And for the record, Tyler, announcing your intelligence is self-serving at best, insecure at worst, but in either case does not instill confidence in the reader that you are.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Brendan Leonard
posted on 10/13/2006 @ 2:04:07 PM
Rated Blog Entry
Your mustache isn't cheesy, Rob. Rollie Fingers' mustache was cheesy.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Barbara Neff
posted on 10/10/2006 @ 10:14:40 AM
Rated Blog Entry
Most flamefests are among those who have nothing of substance to say. I compare flaming to road rage. Something about the anonymity afforded from inside a car or behind a computer brings out aggression. People say and do things they'd never do eye-to-eye when they know they can hit and run. I agree YourHub.com seems to attract those quite above flaming. Good thing.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: William Boucher
posted on 10/7/2006 @ 10:07:01 PM
Rated Blog Entry
I don't give a hairy rats booty what they rate me. Hit my blog five or six times and flame me all you want. It's about the hits, baby! Besides, I'd like to think that in a battle of wits, I'd knock their wankies in the dirt.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Delete Me
posted on 10/7/2006 @ 3:39:50 PM
Rated Blog Entry
Hear Hear! Not only is it cowardly to not accompany a bad review without supporting text, it doesn't do much for the debate at hand. Having an opposing view is great. I welcome anyone who can challenge an idea, but I would rather welcome an intelligent rebuke. Of course I too fall victim to speaking without thought on ocassion, but I generally try to pay attention to the subject at hand. Believe me Rob, I have seen a veritable cornucopia of flames directed at me for things I have siad or posted for public review. Seems taking things out of context is a much easier way to form an opinion. You don't have to do your research that way. (reference any political ad slinging mud over one word taken from a 2000 page document)
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Karin Malchow
posted on 10/7/2006 @ 1:50:56 PM
Rated Blog Entry
Perhaps flamers were never taught by their mothers: Never say anything about someone that you can't say to their face. I could never wholly embrace the other one: If you can't say something nice about a person, don't say anything at all. We would never be able to talk about politicians.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Joe McDaniel
posted on 10/7/2006 @ 1:10:04 PM
Rated Blog Entry
The one star personal attacker is a coward. (oops - is that allowed?) Any rating from 1 to 5 should be accompanied by comment explaining the reason for the rating. If a reader has an opinion it can best be expressed in a blog or story; not in the comment box. YourHub offers a wonderful opportunity to write, therefore think, before expressing one's self - thus avoiding a knee jerk response. Flamers don't like that. I rated this blog a 5 because a.)it's well written and b.) I agree with you 100%.
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-8 of 8 comments
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Rob Guthrie

Parker , CO

Rob Guthrie has posted 49 blog entries and 302 comments since joining on 6/15/2006. Rob Guthrie 's average blog rating is 4.99.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS BLOG ENTRY
BLOG ENTRY RSS FEEDS
BLOG LIST
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is  register,  then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyonewhat events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos