I was, for years, the regular target of a flamer on the newsgroups. For some reason she had it in for me and lost no opportunity to bash me in whatever way she could. I tried to ignore her as much as possible, but was often drawn into discussions that she was part of. There were two reasons that I would respond sometimes:

1) She would often attack my honesty, the integrity and quality of my music, or the honor of my friends. Since honesty and integrity are important to me, and to the folk community in general, I sometimes felt the need to defend myself. Letting lies go unanswered means that some other person might read them and believe them. Answering her usually made it quickly obvious to all that she was crazy.

2) One of the ways that flamers get their jollies is to take over existing threads and, by the outrageous nature of their comments, change the subject matter in subtle or not-so-sublte ways to be about themselves, their target, or some pet peeve/enthusiasm. I spent a lot of time dropping out of threads I was interested in when my attack dog would show up, but then I realized that she was silencing me. It is sometimes possible to have a discussion around the flamer, but when everyone else in the thread goes off on the flamer's tangent, you either have to go along and try to post as intelligently as possible, or be silenced.

I agree that non-response is the best response to general flames that don't attack an individual or interrupt an existing discussion. And even then it's often the best response

John Peekstok