From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 08:38:30 PDT
Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> writes: > > 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? > > -- > Rule Date: 2003-05-22 03:30:14 GMT > Validity: No problems. Comments on previous rule's sarcasm. Style: Acidly sarcastic, succinct, obeys its own restriction. +2.5. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY "We're waist deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool says to push on." -- Pete Seeger -- Rule Date: 2003-05-22 15:38:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST