The dog-eat-dog world of the mailing list

One problem is that the "big dogs" in a community often set the behavioural standards that others seek to copy, especially if those others don't have anything positive to contribute themselves. So if a leader in a community flames people, even if the root of the flame is to justifiably criticise something, the less proficient people (the "fanboys" being an extreme case) think that by acting like their role models, they will ultimately converge on the same level of success and expertise that those role models currently enjoy.

Now, to an extent, one can understand outsiders in a project being abrasive, although rudeness shouldn't be accepted from any party: if people perceive that they've encountered resistance to what they regard as genuinely worthy ideas, they are likely to be frustrated. What is intolerable, however, is when someone in a position of power or control sees the need to offend others who are merely trying to contribute. It doesn't matter if some newcomer's or outsider's patch or suggestion is flawed, community leaders don't need to insult people to defend their position: they can simply refuse to incorporate such work and maintain the levels of power and control that they already enjoy.

When people in positions of strength ridicule or shame others (despite attempts to justify such behaviour through notions of moral and cultural relativism), the effect is frequently known as "bullying".