Newsgroups: alt.humor.best-of-usenet From: jim@visix.com (Jim Edwards-Hewitt) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 06:37:03 GMT Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.advocacy From: various Subject: Generic discussion thread These appeared in rec.games.frp.advocacy. Apologies if I missed any. Some .sigs have been edited out. - Jim Edwards-Hewitt Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.humor,alt.comp.folklore Subject: Innocuously eye-catching subject description. Date: 10 Jul 1993 09:19:11 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA A greeting. [optional] A fully- or semi-intentionally deceptive statement of harmless intent. An outrageously inflammatory expression of opinion carelessly or deliberately framed as a declaration of fact. Indications of a complete lack of common sense, common courtesy, the simplest set of relevant facts, and the use of logic. An unspeakably arrogant attitude and/or gross contempt for truth, thinly covered [optional] with occasional and unconvincing spasms of false modesty. An utterly insincere and transparent protestation of good will, good cheer, and/or civility; includes [optional] the use of a conventional witticism or idiom intended to indicate membership in the peer group derided/offended by the above. A .sig block that might be amusing if the reader's mind weren't distracted by an image of the author sneering. From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Innocuously eye-catching subject description Date: 12 Jul 93 02:10:08 MDT Organization: Utah State University (Edgar C. Whipple) writes: > A greeting. [optional] Explicitive. [optional] > A fully- or semi-intentionally deceptive statement of harmless intent. A sharply sarcastic statement which casts aspersions on the first poster's sincerity. > An outrageously inflammatory expression of opinion carelessly or > deliberately framed as a declaration of fact. Indications of a complete > lack of common sense, common courtesy, the simplest set of relevant facts, > and the use of logic. An unspeakably arrogant attitude and/or gross > contempt for truth, thinly covered [optional] with occasional and > unconvincing spasms of false modesty. An outright but overly defensive attack on the first poster. Shrill and uneloquent insults flung in the haste of anger, the effects of which are wholly inneffective. Snide ponderings on the marital legitimacy of the first poster's conception [optional]. Explicitives [optional]. Hasty attempts to verbosly counter the first post point by point. Overly defensive and strident nature of the followup leads readers to wonder if the first poster was right after all. > An utterly insincere and transparent protestation of good will, good > cheer, and/or civility; includes [optional] the use of a conventional > witticism or idiom intended to indicate membership in the peer group > derided/offended by the above. A frothing but insipid volley of parting insults. A holier-than-thou (and wordier-than-necessary) imploration to the first poster to take more care in posting. Much use of collective pronouns (like ``us'' and ``we''); a dubious indication that the followup expresses the opinions of everyone except the first poster. > A .sig block that might be amusing if the reader's mind > weren't distracted by an image of the author sneering. A final, desparate and altogether ineffective attempt to belittle the first poster by mocking the contents of the .sig file [optional]. In sum, a post at least twice as long as the original which says half as much; probably the precise response the first poster was baiting for. Okay then, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chadd VanZanten SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU ``My karma ran over my dogma.'' --Unknown Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy From: robbiew@inviso.com (Robbie Westmoreland) Subject: Re: Innocuously eye-catching subject description Organization: The Invisible Establishment Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 14:14:02 GMT Snide reference to the apparent intelligence of someone who posts the same response twice, once with a different subject line. In article <1993Jul12.021009.69907@cc.usu.edu> sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes: >(Edgar C. Whipple) writes: > >> A greeting. [optional] > >Explicitive. [optional] Spelling flame. [mandatory] >> A fully- or semi-intentionally deceptive statement of harmless intent. > >A sharply sarcastic statement which casts aspersions on the first poster's >sincerity. Back-handed references to the admission standards of poster's university, musing as to the right of said poster to cast aspersions on anyone. >An outright but overly defensive attack on the first poster. Shrill and >uneloquent insults flung in the haste of anger, the effects of which are wholly ^^ ^^^^^^^ >inneffective. Snide ponderings on the marital legitimacy of the first poster's ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >conception [optional]. Explicitives [optional]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ More spelling flames, coupled with grammar flames. Repeat above comment about admission standards, with more force. Comment on apparent intelligence of poster. >Hasty attempts to verbosly counter the first post point by point. Overly >defensive and strident nature of the followup leads readers to wonder if the >first poster was right after all. Ad hominem response implying that no argument from the second poster should be considered valid. >> An utterly insincere and transparent protestation of good will, good >> cheer, and/or civility; includes [optional] the use of a conventional >> witticism or idiom intended to indicate membership in the peer group >> derided/offended by the above. > >A frothing but insipid volley of parting insults. A holier-than-thou (and >wordier-than-necessary) imploration to the first poster to take more care in >posting. Much use of collective pronouns (like ``us'' and ``we''); a dubious >indication that the followup expresses the opinions of everyone except the >first poster. A heart-felt wish that above use of collective pronouns refers only to those unfortunate enough to be attending the same institution as the second poster. >A final, desparate and altogether ineffective attempt to belittle the first ^^^^^^^^^ >poster by mocking the contents of the .sig file [optional]. More spelling flames, as well as a comment unfavorably comparing the second poster's .sig with the first poster's. >In sum, a post at least twice as long as the original which says half as much; >probably the precise response the first poster was baiting for. A notation pointing out that much good would have been served had the second poster trimmed excess text, preferrably including his (or her) own. This is fun! :) From: cxc4107@hertz.njit.edu (Christopher Lee Cavender) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: Re: Innocuously eye-catching subject description Date: 15 Jul 93 20:59:18 GMT Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey Nntp-Posting-Host: hertz.njit.edu >(Edgar C. Whipple) writes: >> A greeting. [optional] >> A fully- or semi-intentionally deceptive statement of harmless intent. >> An outrageously inflammatory expression of opinion carelessly or >> deliberately framed as a declaration of fact. Indications of a complete >> lack of common sense, common courtesy, the simplest set of relevant facts, >> and the use of logic. An unspeakably arrogant attitude and/or gross >> contempt for truth, thinly covered [optional] with occasional and >> unconvincing spasms of false modesty. >> An utterly insincere and transparent protestation of good will, good >> cheer, and/or civility; includes [optional] the use of a conventional >> witticism or idiom intended to indicate membership in the peer group >> derided/offended by the above. > >> A .sig block that might be amusing if the reader's mind >> weren't distracted by an image of the author sneering. > A one line addenmum of a fully quoted post, that terminals should be better protected. From: allbery@gold.gvg.tek.com (Richard Allbery) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy Subject: A completely different innocent subject (Was Re: Innocuously...) Date: 17 Jul 93 06:16:42 GMT Organization: Soon to be Stanford University A statement that no one in the previous thread is supporting any of their arguments. An accusation that all of the other posters on this subject are biased. An announcement that I will objectively analyze the subject and specifically support my arguments. An endless series of quotes, statistics, and numbers that mean absolutely nothing, have nothing to do with the topic, and/or are completely misquoted. A conclusion drawn from the above "facts" that can be best described as a leap of faith. A statement that my point has now been proved. A self- important note that no one should respond to this message unless they give *specific* arguments. A parting shot at anyone with subjective arguments. A brief restatement of my subjective argument [optional]. A sig that has obviously been designed to be inoffensive [optional]. --------------- You're right--this *is* fun! 8-) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy From: robbiew@inviso.com (Robbie Westmoreland) Subject: A Monosyllabic Word Organization: The Invisible Establishment Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 22:55:55 GMT A condemnation of those who keep flaming one another. An impassioned plea for the rule of reason, or at least for the principles to take the argument to email. Remarks that all most people want to do is enjoy the net. Repeat of above plea, sounding increasingly like Rodney King. Thanks to reader's cooperation prior to its delivery. -- .sig indicating person's relative newness on Usenet. Yup, thought so. It's still fun. :)