Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!labrea!husc6!bu-cs!bzs From: bzs@bu-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: Flamer's bible, rev. 1 Message-ID: <16951@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 4-Dec-87 00:43:15 EST Article-I.D.: bu-cs.16951 Posted: Fri Dec 4 00:43:15 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Dec-87 06:17:23 EST References: <7120014@hpsemc.UUCP> Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci. Lines: 116 In-reply-to: jat@hpsemc.UUCP's message of 2 Dec 87 19:09:17 GMT Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) From Joe Talmadge: > The FLAMERS BIBLE You might have considered net.religion. >1. Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies > sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly." > "Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot." You made a claim like this several years ago in net.suicide and were clearly proven to be wrong then, do you think we've all forgetten so fast? Clearly not. >2. Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've > heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. > Clearly, you're qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. > "Polly Purebread, by using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, > shows she has a bad case of penis envy." I suppose you're just being defensive here, most people who deride psychology actually fear it, like young children making fun of ghosts or monsters. Obviously the first step is admitting you have a problem, but it's impossible to push you. >3. Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for > the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From > rec.arts.wobegon to alt.gourmand, they're all holding their > breaths until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere. I've sent notes to the groups you mention and a few others to get their opinion on your advice here. >4. Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason > can't *possibly* be that you're a fuckhead. There's obviously > a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire > net a favor by exposing it. I assume you got this idea from some of the Brahm's gang, or maybe Tim Maroney. I know you've been playing the two of them off each other against me for months now. There, at least it's out in the open now. >5. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the > Yin & Yang of flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always > considered to be in good form. "By saying that I've posted > to the wrong group, Bertha has libelled me, slandered me, > and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha." Not sure how to tell you this but I've been babysitting for a Fundamentalist Lawyer's kid tonight. He was just reading this over my shoulder, saw the word "sodomized", shrieked and died. Not sure how I'm going to explain this to the parents but I did save your note in a file in case they're interested. >6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus > states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you > should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written > an article on Harry's pasta preferences, then Harry's obviously > lying. Where did you hear this? >7. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca > of flaming. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least > three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are > "ad nauseum", "vini, vidi, vici", "fetuccini alfredo". Ze zultz vaxen v'a tsibula, mitt kup in dread und fis arif. >8. Tell 'em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to > convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell > them? State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks > of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam > since high school. "I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, > MCATs, and I can also spell the word 'premeiotic' ". This of course is ridiculous, people like myself who have spent years at prestigious institutions like Harvard have no such need to brag like that. We earned our place in the pecking order, need I list how? >9. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American > citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as > guaranteed by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries > to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to email is > either a communist, a fascist, or both. How much longer does this diatribe go on? Are you just trying to flood this list with this crap so people like myself don't get read at all? Is this something they told you to do in a cell meeting? >10. Doubt their existence: You've never actually seen your opponent, > have you? And since you're the center of the universe, you > should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore, THEY > DON'T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers' logic. Hmm, I just got this exact same paragraph from my fortune file. >11. Lie, cheat, steal, show your support for child pornography! No comment. >12. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 11 rules, remember > this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a flamer > you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is > better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear > apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At > this point, there's only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!! > "Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with vegetables." One can only wonder about the sort of mind which produces this sort of drivel. What I don't understand is how losers like this manage to avoid getting hit by street cars on the way to their terminals. -B