Conference turris::womannotes-v1

570.0. "Memo Wars - or electronic guerrilla warfare" by GNUVAX::BOBBITT (a collie down isnt a collie beaten) Thu Dec 03 1987 13:54

    This is a copy of portions of Fortune's Rules for Memo Wars.  
    It is written in an extremely sarcastic manner,
    and tells you all the wrong things to do.  It is almost humorous,
    but considering some recent interchanges in this file, it almost
    seems like something people might take seriously.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
	Now... your opponent has requested a "rational discussion".  What do
you do?  Well, remember that people are normally willing to discuss things
rationally if and only if you agree with them; anything less would obviously
not be rational.  Therefore, agree immediately, and continue as before.
	Always assume that whenever you see someone making a statement about
"certain parties who shall remain nameless", "some people", "assholes", etc.,
they are talking about *you*.  It is also correct to assume that words you
don't understand, such as "prestidigatory", "lapidarian", and "buprestid",
are direct personal attacks aimed at your loved ones and merit an equally
scathing response.  Failure to do this results in many lost opportunities for
rational discussion.  (See above.)

Given the incredible advances in sociocybernetics and telepsychology over
the last few years, we are now able to completely understand everything that
the author of a memo is trying to say.  Thanks to modern developments
in electrocommunications like notes, vnews, and electricity, we have an
incredible level of interunderstanding the likes of which civilization has
never known.  Thus, the possibility of your misinterpreting someone else's
memo is practically nil.  Knowing this, anyone who accuses you of having
done so is a liar, and should be treated accordingly.  If you *do* understand
the memo in question, but have absolutely nothing of substance to say, then
you have an excellent opportunity for a vicious ad hominem attack.  In fact,
the only *inappropriate* times for an ad hominem attack are as follows:
 
	1: When you agree completely with the author of a memo.
	2: When the author of the original memo is much bigger than you are.
	3: When replying to one of your own memos.
 
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
30 odd weeks, and a memo 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 memo:

    	1: a mindless twit who attacks other people's beliefs for no reason.
	2: an egotistical flaming typical wombat aggie melon-humping
	   cheese-whizzing nanosexual subuseless clamsucker whose
	   memos are apparently sneezed onto his/her terminal.
	3: something unpleasant.

    The OTHER proper time for an ad hominem attack is immediately after someone
has posted something you don't understand.  Given the current state of modern
electronic communications technology your inability to comprehend the meaning
of a memo constitutes a violation of western moral tradition on the part of
the author of that memo, and the author should be taken to task publicly via
a series of really nasty, name-calling oriented memos.
 

    I love it.  So true, so true.
    
    Thanks for sharing
    Marty

    Are you talking about me?  I'm sure of it, you expletive deleted!

    I love it!  And I can't wait to call someone an "egotistical, 
    typical flaming. . .etc."  Someone smaller than me, of course.
    
    And the party is tomorrow evening. . .  :-D!!
    
    Steve
    

    
    Hummm , so you actually think such unwariented fights/wars and
    such go on in this file, whos members are such a humanistic, 
    friendly and understanding group ?? I can't for the life of 
    me understand how you could get such ideas. :-)
    
                                        Bob B
    

    re .0
    
    I'm laughing so hard tears are running down my face!  Haven't had
    such a good laugh in months.

    I found this in an old DESPERADO, and found it especially keen today:
    
The British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russel enjoyed
playing with the connotations of words.  On a BBC radio program
called "The Brain Trust," Russell presented the following "conjugation"
of an "irregular verb":
 
  I am firm.
  You are obstinate.
  He is a pig-headed fool.
 
The New Statesman and Nation, quoting the above as a model, offered
prizes to readers who submitted the best "irregular verbs" based on
Russel's model.  Here are some of the entries as they appeared in the
June 5, 1984 issue:
 
  I am sparkling.
  You are unusually talkative.
  He is drunk.
 
  I am beautiful.
  You have quite good features.
  She isn't bad looking, if you like that type.
 
  I day dream.
  You are an escapist.
  He ought to see a psychiatrist.
 
  I have about me something of the subtle, haunting fragrance of the Orient.
  You rather overdo it, dear.
  She stinks.
  
[The above extracted from Richard Lederer's "Looking At Language" column
in the Concord (NH) Monitor.]
-------------------------------------------
    I am just making a point.
    You are bickering.
    They are fighting.