Flaming - what is GNHQs approach to this?

Often these 'flames' are posted for the sole purpose of offending or upsetting other users.

Well, there we have it from the horse's mouth.
Unbelievable.

Gobsmacked as another poster said.

Actual flaming is a deliberate attempt to try to provoke anger - often by commenting on the person or the way they posted rather than the substance of their post - while contributing nothing to the actual topic^

Commenting that someone who may not be eligible for benefits but is nonetheless struggling may be a 'cup half full person' is flaming ignorant imo.

Pot, kettle, black comes to mind.

No,GG2 I was the one comparing

a) annsixty's post and your post,
b) a hairdryer and an electric paint-stripper, as a metaphor for comparative heat delivery,

and finding parallels in the proportions of the two pairs. Worth it, I think, when you accused her of flaming.

Does that explain it clearly enough ? If not, then I am afraid I shall have to leave you puzzled, Any more would just become yet another heated exchange.

I have no idea what you mean Elegran I'm afraid. Do try again if you think it's worth it. I said

There is no flaming of annsixty on this thread at 10.52. I don't think you have quite understood what it is MawBroon. If you tell me what you think was flaming I will explain or, of course, apologise.

I don't think I compared anything did I?

GG28? Surely there aren't another 27 Gee-gees cantering around?

Compared to what ansixty had said to cause you to reply as you did, GG28, was like comparing a hairdryer with a heated wallpaper stripper. REAL flaming is a scorching flame-thrower. Let's hope the "robust exchange of views" doesn't follow the course of internet flame wars and cause third degree burns.

How about calling a halt and going away to talk about something else?

There is no flaming of annsixty on this thread at 10.52. I don't think you have quite understood what it is MawBroon. If you tell me what you think was flaming I will explain or, of course, apologise.

Actual flaming is a deliberate attempt to try to provoke anger - often by commenting on the person or the way they posted rather than the substance of their post - while contributing nothing to the actual topic. Often these 'flames' are posted for the sole purpose of offending or upsetting other users

Like the criticism (entirely unwarranted) of annsixty at 10.52 ?
Well there you go.
And there was me thinking GN was about exchanging views, discussing topics of current or mutual interest, having a “chat” with virtual friends, supporting those in need or distress and advising on steam mops.
It is clearly MUCH more complicated and I will need to have my rulebook/instruction manual to hand before I venture out.
Honestly, teacup, storm, go figure!

Bluebell, please don't be troubled , you joined in the discussion , that was it

Nice to see the voice of reason Elegran, as always.

I think you are entitled to your view Bluebelle and I can see where you are coming from. Having said that, DS1 is disabled and benefits from the scheme so I can see both sides.

Oh, I think real flaming is a much more serious sort of thing than what happens on Gransnet. Flaming is like directing a flame-thrower at a weed and continuing until it wilts and dies. I've not seen anything as destructive as that.

I've not noticed that you were particularly fragile and inclined to wilt, GG2, either.

??? I m so thick I ve only just realised this is all about a very innocuous comment I made, how very strange is it me being accused of ‘flaming’ A term I d never even come across or knew about, I m about the last person to flame I very rarely post on political threads because I don’t feel I m knowledgable enough but I don’t think my post was out of order I ve been on benefits for a period in my past life But clawed myself out and upwards
I stand by my comment and will explain it ...I watch some families that can work but ‘choose’ not to pick up every ‘extra’ possible there are others who work very hard and have pulled themselves just over the ‘benefit line’ but live in cold homes because of high costs
There is nothing meant to be inflammatory about that it is a true observation and I can go into it further if you want more proof of my example
I would never want really poor or disabled or unable people to go without I just wish there were fairer ways of deciding who
I have never tried to inflame on here and anyone who has seen my posts over the years will know that s not my way

So looking up old threads and copying and pasting old posts on a new thread , apart from sad, is this flaming ?

No posts were ‘flaming’ kitty it’s all nonsense.

Is telling a poster to get off a thread flaming ?

But, which post was 'flaming'?

Yes, if someone is joining in the topic and contributes something another poster feels is irrelevant they will almost certainly be able to reply and discuss the post or ignore it. Yes we all can, and do, ignore posts that do not interest us. Yes, threads wander and we can all go along with that, either enjoying the wander or bringing it back to the OP or, occasionally, both. These sorts of posts are not 'flaming'. Flaming can even, occasionally, happen by accident when someone misreads or misinterprets a post but a quick apology will sort that out. That is not what I was talking about.

Actual flaming is a deliberate attempt to try to provoke anger - often by commenting on the person or the way they posted rather than the substance of their post - while contributing nothing to the actual topic. Often these 'flames' are posted for the sole purpose of offending or upsetting other users. It can throw the discussion of a legitimate topic well off track and is often designed to do just that.

I am grateful to Laura for clarifying how GNHQ sees such posts.

Keep Calm and Carry On
an overused saying but still useful.

I still don't understand what is meant by flaming.
Is it the first post on the thread that is not directly related to the topic?
Or is it a response to the post that is not directly related to the topic?
Which one is flaming?

Derailing by the not of the far left is I assume the same as diversion by the far left

But, yes, jalima, you'd think people could adopt the ignore and carry on mode. It happens sometimes.

Some threads need to be derailed.

Last time I bought minibaggs some school shoes (no, not that kind! ; sorry, newbies, long-standing GN joke; you'll come across the source at some point (wonder if I've broken the rules saying that? ?)) the shop assistant offered us some polish/cleaning substance. I asked M if she was ever going to clean her shoes. She said no so I said no thanks to the assistant.

Don't get your fingers scalded loopyloo

However, when its a serious thread that's discussing serious suffering then I think it's unacceptable to start derailing for example discussing the state of someone's shoes when the issue under discussion is very late payments of benefits
What puzzles me is that other posters could easily ignore an irrelevant post and carry on the discussion (notice I do not use the term derailing) but carry on with the same irrelevant theme for post after post


Just to let you know that my DF always cleaned my shoes; they were always polished to perfection but that when I married DH he was astonished that I would expect him to clean mine.

No derailing intended