Jack the Sailor (re Big Mick's post): The Jargon Dictionary's definition of "flame" (linked from the Mudcat FAQ) is as follows. 1. vi. To post [a] message intended to insult and provoke. 2. vi. To speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude. 3. vt. Either of senses 1 or 2, directed with hostility at a particular person or people. 4. n. An instance of flaming.

Definition 1: The only insults I see in Big Mick's post are directed toward the flamers (who will ignore them anyway, no doubt). His reference to those of us who have responded to flamers as "fools" is, alas, all too true and is descriptive rather than insulting.

Definition 2: The subject of his post is obviously relevant. I think his attitude, rather than "patently ridiculous", is as he put it "cranky", and angry and disgusted.

Definition 3: I did not think he displayed hostility toward Mudcat members, just anger and disgust as I've said.

Definition 4: Is Big Mick's post an instance of flaming? I don't think so.

Some final thoughts for this post: To refer to the content of a flame-post within one's own post, or to quote the flamer's words directly, is in my opinion a form of responding to that flamer. It demonstrates not only that he has captured your attention but that you are considering what he has to say. Please, everyone, follow Joe's advice and don't respond to flamers IN ANY WAY on the Forum.

If you're not sure that a post is a flame, send a PM to Joe or Pene and ask. Wait for an answer before you respond to the post. If the post is a flame that Joe, Pene and Max feel should be deleted, then it won't be there to respond to! (...and you will have done us all a favor by pointing it out to them!)

Sharon (who's learned the hard way)