From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 08:51:32 PDT
Steve Gardner <gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au> writes: > 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 > Validity: Quotes not the previous rule but the rule before the previous rule. The previous rule was Steve's own, so Steve could hardly be unaware of it, so a ruling of UNSUCCESSFUL cannot be made. INVALID. Style: Invalidity is always unstylish. In addition there's the fact that this rule fails to obey the restriction of Steve's previous rule; maybe Steve anticipated the latter's UNSUCCESSFUL ruling, but that seems dubious. The quoting of the entire previous rule may have been due to the ambiguity of 209:3. To forestall inflationary future rules, I will interpret 209:3 as requiring only that a (significant) portion of the previous rule be quoted. -1.5. -- - 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 15:51:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST