A rather unusual-but-true example of this came from
a person who was involved in a group marriage
who criticized the minister for not mentioning "triples"
when he referred to "couples".
The speaker had not meant to exclude threesomes, etc.,
but it would be very distracting to have to mention group marriages
whenever mentioning any kind of marriage.
(In a sense, this was also a tribal/partisan response:
"When you said such-and-such, you didn't mention my group.")

     The flame-catchers might decide
to pass some of these 'left field' comments on to the original author,
but they should not be shared with the whole readership
if the comments are not germane to the original subject.
Single-issue advocates should have
the same opportunities as others to address their passions
—but in discussions focused on those themes.

     Some people who respond to Internet communications
engage in nit-picking.
Whatever the content of the original contribution,
they find something to criticize.
However, nit-picking can be useful to the original author.
{When this service is performed professionally, it is called editing.}
Any detailed comment can enabling the original author
to revise a word or phrase that left a false impression.
Thus, even nit-pickers can be helpful to the process of revision.
If one person's mind was led off on a tangent
by an inappropriate reference,
there might have been other minds similarly distracted.
But such communications need not be shared with the entire readership.

     Some bickering arises from a basically negative response to the author.
This might be compared to the 'debates' that sometimes arises in families.
When two people are not getting along well, they may find themselves
being hypercritical of everything the other does or says.
If we look carefully enough and with enough ill-will,
we will be able to find something wrong
with every single statement or action of the other person.
When flame-catchers receive such communications for review,
the bickering should probably be returned to the sender
—with an explanation of the reason for intercepting the message—
since passing bickering responses on to the person being attacked
will probably not be a useful experience for the original author.

     [Sidelight: Wouldn't it be wonderful if married people
who were not getting along had a flame-catcher
to intercept the most hurtful comments they throw at each other?
(If you were offended by the reference to "married people"
in the previous sentence, and if you think it should have said
"married people and others people living together", you are right,
but it might have been a nit-picking or tribal response.)]

     However, some authors might choose to receive all communications
about their work, including even the most irrational flames.
But, of course, this would not mean that such responses
were appropriate to share with the entire readership.
Flame-catchers might also organize the responses according to type:
personal attacks, nit-picking, tribal responses, etc.
Then the original author can read the responses or ignore them at will.
The author might be in the mood for serious responses at one time
and more ready to read flames at another.

Created June 24, 2001; revised 9-11-2010