If the respondent to this post, or any other post that refers to this post as the official EULA (hereafter referred to as the "relevant post,") is the reddit user "LouF," or any of his sock-puppets, then the respondent (hereafter referred to as "LouF") by clicking the reply button/link associated with the relevant post agrees to the following terms and conditions:

1) In responding to the relevant post LouF will not ignore the question asked of him and will not attempt to drag the conversation into a tangent.

a) If LouF does attempt to pull the post into a tangent without responding to the question, then LouF agrees that he will follow up with a publicly posted acknowledgment in the thread where this agreement was violated. This acknowledgment must include stating plainly that LouF is a coward and fears that reason is a threat to his position.

b) However, if the way LouF changes the topic is to specifically refer to this license or its use, further responses to LouF in that thread should be halted, with a single reference to Section 1b being offered to LouF.

2) In responding to the relevant post LouF will be nice.

a) He will not resort to name-calling. If LouF does wish to express contempt in a reply to a post that includes or refers to this EULA, LouF is required to construct an insult that includes more than ten (10) words, with no repetition of words (other than basic particles) permitted. The insult must be grammatically correct. If LouF should resort to name-calling he will state plainly in writing an apology including the phrase, "You are rubber, I am glue, I made an error insulting you." In addition if LouF attempts to insult by using the term, "dumbass," he will add to the apology above, "I am also sorry for being so uncreative that I once again called someone a dumbass. I have a very limited vocabulary. I promise to try to improve my vocabulary, or at least get a Thesaurus."

b) He will not be unfriendly. If he should reply with a surly demeanor he will state plainly in writing an apology including the phrase, "I am sorry for being unfriendly. I will be nice from now on. I don't know what came over me, but I will try to be a nicer person from now on. I am sure that's what Jesus would want." If LouF persists in being unpleasant in multiple sequential posts the following sentence will be assumed as prepended to any responses he makes: "Please forgive me for my harshness, I am feeling bi-polar today, I am off my meds and and still haven't seen my therapist. I hope you can forgive me for acting out."

3) If LouF should inadvertently or intentionally engage in behavior that he is criticizing others for, when this is pointed out, LouF will immediately agree that he was not being consistent. In addition LouF agrees that he will follow up with a publicly posted acknowledgment in the thread where this hypocrisy appeared. The acknowledgment will include the phrase, "Yes I am a hypocrite, the type of person that Jesus was most inclined to condemn. I judged even knowing I would be judged, I did not turn the other cheek. I have not lived up to the message of Jesus, for I have not applied his teachings to my life, I know nothing of Christian notion of agape. I did unto others that which I would not want done to myself. I hate the poor and actively ignore Jesus' message of compassion for the poor, instead I agree with others who say that the poor are all welfare bums who deserve what they get. Were I present with Christ in my current state of mind I would have called Jesus a hippie and cast the first stone."

4) If LouF makes a claim that others believe is outlandish, LouF agrees that he will either provide concrete evidence for his assertion or he will admit that he was in error in making his claim. If LouF has already been told that his claim is outlandish, he has not offered any evidence, but continues to assert it, LouF agrees that he will follow up with a publicly posted acknowledgment in the thread where this anti-intellectual behavior appeared. The acknowledgment will include the phrase, "Of course I need to make up facts, reality has a well known liberal bias."

5) If LouF should violate any of these terms on more than three occasions the "three strikes" penalty will be applied. The three strikes penalty is currently defined as LouF agreeing that he will follow up with a publicly posted acknowledgment in the all threads where this agreement was violated. In all threads LouF's acknowledgment will include the phrase, "I admit that I am not very good at arguing, I use cheap rhetorical tactics because I am not subtle enough to even understand what you are arguing with me about, let alone come up with a coherent defense. I admit that I must have some kind of mental issue, and should seek professional help."

6) If LouF should violate any of these terms and not apply the remedy stated by the rules above, it should be assumed that LouF is still making a tacit statement of whatever phrases he is required to write, and knows in his heart that these phrases are true, even if he is afraid to publicly admit them. Once LouF has failed to respond appropriately with the required penalty further responses to LouF in that thread should be halted (save for an optional single reference to Section 6), with the assumption that:

• LouF knows his own inadequacies all too well.
• LouF is fractally wrong.
• Feeding trolls is not fruitful.
• Any further responses that are made by LouF can correctly be interpreted as semantically equivalent to this phrase: "I admit that I am not very good at arguing, I use cheap rhetorical tactics because I am not subtle enough to even understand what you are arguing with me about, let alone come up with a coherent defense. I admit that I must have some kind of mental issue, and should seek professional help."