This seems to presuppose that either such flames are caused by unclear statements, or by errors in reading comprehension by the Flameurs. Not only do I not think this is a very common circumstance, I doubt this cure would help much in such cases. And furthermore, it would be highly likely to spark off (yet more) Straw Man/Distortion of My Position type flamage.
Personally, I think that DRool #3 can be decomposed into two elements: curtailing truly excessive quoting, which is redundant with the even-more-flouted Rule #1; and quoting style policing, which is an inappropriate thing to try to be proscriptive about, IMhaughtyO. Point-by-point arguments can be tedious, I'll grant, but point-by-point paraphrasing would be at least as bad as point-by-point quoting, and more confusing to boot.
How about a new rule (instead): No =3D's and =20's!
Loren's also griped by the:
> frightful specter of hordes of shaven-headed Danfive Xaron inductees
> moshing to the sounds of war and spending their time off roaming the
> streets looking for long-haired drunks to beat up.
Of which there's an ample supply these days: pummel those hazia-addled Whoonies mercilessly! It's your patriotic duty, Citizens!
Civicly,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail