>I disagree. LBO, contrary to popular opinion, is not
>a flame pit.
no, i've seen ken get flamed too many times on this list to agree to this.
the flames are of a wholly different kind than the simplistic, "you're a moron". they are typically what i call substantive flames. when carrol calls me a weberian, he has flamed me as he intended. heartfield and casey just duked it out ne? come on, that was a flame fest!
they are the second best flame fests on the internet. the best were at bad subjects. see catherine driscoll for the fine art of the substantive and condescending yet oh so subtle flame. utterly no name calling there. but man i smell flesh-a-fire right now.
It sure as shooting ain't because of
>my non-confrontational nature.
i hate to break it to you dd, but i see you as one of the least confrontational people on this list! honest!
lists need flames, despite norm's demand that it should be polite. fact is norm, i've seen "polite" in academia. in those safe protected contexts, people simply do it over pinot noir with the sounds of a jazz quartet accompanying the vitriole and spite. frankly, i would rather have it be "allowed" rather than officially barred and have people figure out "polite" ways to singe each other. but maybe i'm clinging to authenticity or something.
we need flame fests because they define the boundaries of membership. they make clear what is and isn't acceptable. a social group such as a list is, one that is fairly informal, does not sit around and decide what the rules are. in fact, if any of had to sit down and figure out what is and isnt' allowed and what this list stands for we probably couldn't very easily. we'd also disagree a lot.
but bring someone into the midst who doesn't follow the tacit rules, who challenges our hidden assumptions, or who demands that we defend ourselves, etc is the foil against which people we build a sense of solidarity.
we fight interminably over all kinds of things. but bring an outsider in, such has happened recently, and the process can make much more clear what actually unites us, despite the disagreements. moreover, the injection of "new blood" can either reinvigorate and solidify our commitment to those ideals, principals, values, etc OR it can sufficiently challenge us so that we question them and start a debate over the legitimacy of previously unspoken assumption about what we value and what we share, what holds us together in the vast of the diversity.