Non-yellow flags and non-Red Moons

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_interzone.ucc.ie>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 21:54:31 +0100 (BST)


Loren Miller quotes the third of the rules we get through our mailboxes several times every day (in full), and doesn't issue a yellow flag:
> It seems to me that some of the most vicious, yellow-flag deserving,
> point/counter-point arguments on this digest would never even grow from
> the glimmer in the eye stage to bawling, vomiting life, if the participants
> would restate their "proto-opponents" positions in their own words and
> ask, before flaming, if they understand those statements correctly.

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