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