From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 20:50:24 PDT
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Ed Murphy wrote: > > Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour. But then maybe, just maybe you > > have managed to break that spell with your brilliantly sarcastic first > > rule. However, I fear that others will be unable to match your brilliant > > "wit" in using what you have shown to be a formidable tool of > > communication. So what to do? I really do believe that others will be > > able to learn the mysteries of this quirky piece of language only by > > picking apart its previous usage. As such all future rules shall make > > comment on the sarcasm in previous rules. > > Oh yeah, that was well-written. Did you pick out the crayon yourself? > > All future rules shall include a quotation of the last rule (valid or not), > so as to better make fun of it. > > Furthermore, no rule shall prohibit or restrict /ad hominem/ comments. What > fun would it be if we did that? That last restriction is such a brilliant stroke that I am left almost speechless. How could it possibly be improved upon? Oh, I know: let's *require* each future rule to include ad hominem remarks. What could possibly be more fun than spending the Round insulting each other? -- Steve Gardner | School of Computer Science | I've only just realized and Software Engineering | how self-conscious I am. gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au | -- Rule Date: 2003-05-22 03:52:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST