We are human. Humans have disagreements. When humans have disagreements, we get vocal with our views. The Internet is a perfect medium for voicing one's views. Now, what do you get when you mix humans with disagreements into the toxic miasma of the Internet ? Why, a good old fashioned flame war, of course!

A flame war is net-speak for a seemingly endless online discourse where not much in facts or logic is written, in which place we have an ever increasing number of innuendos, name calling and that old classic, ad-hominem attacks. The online encyclopedia Wikipedia says,

"A flame may have elements of a normal message or entry, but is distinguished by its intent. The motive for flaming is never dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority."

Nothing to do with candles

Flaming has been as old as Usenet itself, which basically means it's positively ancient by the reckoning of the Third Age of the Shire, or rather the present users of the Internet who are absolutely clueless about the origins of this medium.

Back in the days when the Internet was pure ASCII text, one could only establish an online personae or character solely through a prose of messages sent to public bulletin boards or Usenet itself. What you said defined what you were, and that was seen as a Good Thing(tm) indeed for it drew us away from preemptive judgements of a person based on his physical manifestation.

Over time, as Usenet waned, other forms of online publishing reigned supreme, chief among them is the interconnected nexus of the World Wide Web. With the freedom to publish on the WWW being increasingly simple and within reach of the majority of urban homo sapiens, we were suddenly inundated with a diaspora of thoughts and views. But of course, when so much is put forth, you're bound to get a multiplicity of scenarios where these views are in conflict.

And since this great medium allows a response to be made, it must therefore be made and in a manner which reinforces Wikipedia's definition of a flame, an assertion of authority or to establish a position of superiority. And when a new breed of website publishers, who call themselves Bloggers emerged, flaming took on a new twist with missiles and other assorted ballistic intercontinental weapons arching from one internet data centre to another.

But La Flamme Supreme only happens when we have a clash of two cultures, the structured and established mainstream publishing folk and the folk who publish solely on the Internet. Some call this latter group the Fifth Estate, but I'd hesitate on using that term for what they do is no different from the Fourth Estate. The only thing which differs is the medium, and this is not enough to set any elevated status to online publishers.

Flaming algebra

So, to finally get down to the point, the flame war du jour billed as the battle of the Fourth and Fifth Estates is nothing more than a conflict within the 'quatrieme etat'. The proponents are P Gunasegaran, Jackson Ng and Jeff Ooi. In the red corner representing Team Mainstream Journalists are Gunasegaran and Jackson, and in the blue corner representing Team Blog (which isn't really a team, but more on that in another article) is Jeff Ooi.

Mix three people who do not have a problem with voicing their opinions in a sometimes erudite and sometimes banal manner into the same cauldron and what we have is a good old fashioned flame war not unlike the many which peppered the disk spools of Usenet servers of lore.

The core of the battle is nothing more than petty issues, word play and the usual nitpicking, as usually is the case in things like these. However, one theme does stick out, the freedom to speak and from this, the freedom to disagree and to voice that disagreement. I've long liked Jeff's website's tagline, Thinking Allowed, Thinking Aloud. This battle royale is that tagline being instantiated across the divide.

If thinking aloud is allowed and isreally practiced by all participants then me thinks this exchange would not have degenerated into the flame war and ad-hominem responses that it is today. Oddly though, the loudest proponents of freedom of speech usuall forget the maxims they believe in when they are on the receiving end of a fusillade.

This then leads to accusations of censorship and moderation of views contrary to what the proponent holds, and in many cases the removal of third party comments which do not hold those same views. This act of moderation is censorship in any liberal interpretation, and following that makes any assertion of freedom of speech ring very hollow, blog pollution and hijacking notwithstanding.

However, before I muddy the already murky waters with these observations, this spectacle is entertainment to the many who're sitting back with a can of beer and watching it for the same reasons thousands of Malaysians sit in mamak shops and watch WWF Raw. It's contrived, it's perverse humor and by all that is holy, it's funny. As Danny Lim implies, Oon Yeoh must be rubbing his hands with glee. However, Mr Yeoh should /not/ be the only one who gets satisfaction from these proceedings. The rest of the viewing public deserve more, if this is to be billed La Flamme Supreme.

The 12 commandments

To the infighting participants within quatrieme etat, I leave you a modified Twelve Commandments of Flaming as it applies to the Web (with apologies to Dani K) which are as follows:

  1. Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly." "Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot."

  2. Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're qualified to pychoanalyze your opponent. "Polly Purebread, by using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case of penis envy."

  3. Trackback and cross-link your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal! From the Long Bar in RSC to the plastic tables of the mamak stall, they're all holding their breath until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.

  4. Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason can't possibly be that you're wrong. There's obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it.

  5. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the Yin & Yang of Flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in good form. "By saying that I've posted to the wrong group, Bertha has libeled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha."

  6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Goofballs Weekly hasn't written an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously lying.

  7. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca of flaming. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseum," "veni, vidi, vici," and "fetuccini alfredo."

  8. Tell 'em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you've been writing for 75 years or that you attended a conference in Harvard. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got straight As in PMR and STPM and I can also spell the word 'premeiotic' ."

  9. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as a liberal to post whatever you want to the net (as guaranteed by the MSC Bill of Rights, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your voluminous name-calling or ask you to get a room is either a communist, a fascist, or both.

  10. Doubt their existence: You've never actually met your opponent, have you? And since you're the center of the universe, you should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore, THEY DON'T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers' logic.

  11. Lie, cheat, steal, and leave the toilet seat up.

  12. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 11 rules, remember this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a Flamer you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there's only one thing to do: INSULT THE DIRTBAG. "Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with vegetables."

And when all else fails, rely on Godwin's Law and invoke either Hitler or Nazis in your rebuttal, thereby ending the flame war with a clearly benchmarked winner and loser.

DINESH NAIR is a decorated veteran of the Usenet Flame Wars of past and is today collecting disability benefits for injuries suffered in battle.

'The Bit Bucket' is a new column on technology and society.