Milovana.com

Indigo™ wrote: As for flaming the topic ... yeah, maybe. I think it needed a bit of light-hearted banter to break the argumentative mood. That's my prerogative - and anyone else' who decided to do so.

Or maybe you're just jealous, cuz Allit didn't give you the nice flowers ...

Threads dont need this, maybe forums do (ie create a seperate thread).
Sure, its your prerogative, but I too viewed it as inappropriate. Not that I got mad or anthing, but I definitely thought it was inappropriate.
This is a quite painful and serious issue for many people, as the quote in the first post eloquently describes.

Indigo™ wrote: From my perspective, the thread was going down a dark path, and a bit of lighthearted banter broke the tension that was developing. It's how I tend to deal with stress. So I'm genuinely sorry if I offended you, or anyone else.

No worries, I was not offended.
But yeah, this thread is dark, the issues themselves are.


Nezhul, things may seem different to you now, but I assure you it was a different time 15-20 years ago, and many people have still old time views. Young kids have been kicked out of their house when they come out to their parents (a certain epidsode in My So Called Life drawn from the real life experience of the actor comes to mind). There have been suicides. Parents send their kids to "gay curing" camps.
The reason gay parades are so outlandish is to make it more easier on the "regular" gays.

Indigo.... No words to say on your reply, only muffled noises.
To flame the topics you don't like? Only for that you are no more than a jerk.

Who said I didn't like the topic?

Well you DID flame it down after all. It would be really strange to flame a topic you like.
Or maybe you didn't like the course of the discussion, but that still doesn't give you right to do that.

What does flame a topic mean?

les wrote:
Flaming is arguing for the sake of it.

Well, that doesn't make sense then, because Nezhul is saying that Indy was doing that, but I didn't see anyone doing that but Nezhul.

soooooooooooooooo confused!!

shell wrote:What does flame a topic mean?

it's when someone posts a lot of short off-topic or meaningless messages, bringing the real conversation to some distant pages. Something like.
- hi
- hi, how are you
- good. Have a flower
- thanks
- do you like it?
- hehe
-
- here's another picture...

that'd be flame. While flood is a free conversation in not appropriate place, flame is like bringing chat between 2-3 people on the forums.

Clearly your definition of flame is incorrect, Nezhul. To "flame" somebody or "flame" within a forum context is basically to personally attacking another person, inciting anger. Read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29

My bad, I always thought this was actually called Holywar or something. Well whatever it is Indigo was doing is still wrong and unappropriate IMO.

shell wrote:What does flame a topic mean?

The subject of a flaming is always another poster, not a topic/post/thread.

Typically to flame someone simply means giving the crap or personal attacks based on disagreements, either to their opinions themselves or more commonly the way the post or behave.


What Nez is trying to describe is apparently deliberate derailing of, or talking down on any particular topic. Which is something else entirely. The most traditional form of this is often called "to Hitler" a thread - simply referring back to the days of usenet/news, where any given topic would typically go off track and down the drain at the very moment someone mentions the name Hitler