Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oddjob.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!gargoyle!oddjob!garret
From: garret@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Trisha O Tuama)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.jokes
Subject: RULES OF NETNEWS DEBATING -- Addendum
Message-ID: <438@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Sep-84 11:54:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.438
Posted: Mon Sep  3 11:54:58 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Sep-84 07:44:14 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago: Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 33

*****

I wish to propose a corollary to one of Rich Rosen's RULES OF NETNEWS
DEBATING:

Rule #1
-------

> The proper time for a vicious ad hominem attack is when you have no
> logical recourse.  If you have been arguing a point with a person
> or persons for 142 odd weeks, and an article comes across that logically
> tears down the final shred of evidence that you thought you had, that
> is the time to call the author of that article (1) a mindless twit
> who attacks other people's beliefs for no reason, (2) an egotistical
> flaming typical wombat aggie melonhumping cheesewhizzing nanosexual
> subuseless MOTNS clamholder whose submissions are apparently sneezed
> onto his/her terminal, or (3) something unpleasant.

Rule #1-A
_________

Or, if that doesnt' work, back track and insist that everything you
said was an enormously funny joke and if that person had (a) a sense
of humor or (b) any sign of intelligence, he/she would have instantly
perceived the delicate and subtle wit of your comments.


I speak from experience.

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to jmm and Suzanne

Trisha (if you're not going to play by my rules I'm going to take
my ball and go home) O Tuama