209:10

From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 07:34:57 PDT

• Next message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 209:9 -- VALID, +2.0 (was Re: 209:9 -- VALID, +1.0)"
• Previous message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 209:9 -- VALID, +1.0"
• In reply to: Ed Murphy: "209:9"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

== 209:10 ===

> All future rules must include an /ad hominem/ attack.  And if you don't
> know what that is, because you don't speak Latin... there are no words.

What, do you think you're some kind of Joshua-level genius, throwing
around scholarly terminology just to make you look smart?  Freakin'
necrolinguaphile.  Each future rule must use a previously unused
abstruse term, just to prove how very erudite we all are.

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-05-27 14:35:16 GMT

• Next message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 209:9 -- VALID, +2.0 (was Re: 209:9 -- VALID, +1.0)"
• Previous message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 209:9 -- VALID, +1.0"
• In reply to: Ed Murphy: "209:9"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST