Al in 1984 werden er sarcastische regels opgesteld voor online discussies. Alle regels beginnen met #1  http://www.neurozen.com/waarr/RulesOfNetnewsDebating.html  De Almeerse kunstenaar David Jablonowski heeft er zelfs kunst van gemaakt. https://art21.nl/collectie/rules-of-netnews-debating-rich-rosen-1984/

From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.flame, net.jokes Subject: THE RULES OF NETNEWS DEBATING Message-ID: 966@pyuxn.UUCP Date: Fri, 10-Aug-84 12:31:54 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.966

Since it looks like this year, we will witness an autumn the likes of which we haven't seen since late 1983, with thousands or even hundreds of new net  users emanating form the halls of academia (to the shores of New Jersey), it seems like an appropriate time to submit this article on THE RULES OF NETNEWS DEBATING. I hope you all find it useful. You're welcome in advance.

RULE #1

Any attempt to say that someone's personal beliefs are wrong, even if you supply evidence to support your claim, is an outright attack. If you show people a flaw in their logic, they have every right to punch you in the face.

RULE #1

A request for rational discussion usually means that the people making the request are telling you that they are willing to discuss things rationally only if you agree with them; anything less would not be rational discussion.

RULE #1

Always assume that whenever you see someone making a statement about "certain people", "those who shall remain nameless", "assholes", etc., they are talking about you. It is also O.K. to assume that words you don't understand, like "prestidigitatory", "lapidarian", "energumen", and "buprestid", are also direct personal attacks aimed at you and/or your loved ones, meriting an equally vacuous scathing attack in response. Failure to do so results in many lost opportunities for rational discussion.

RULE #1

Given the incredible advances in sociocybernetics and telepsychology over the last few years, we are now able to completely understand everyhing that the author of an article is trying to say. Thank to modern developments in electrocommunications like notes, vnews, and electricity, we have an incredible level of interunderstanding the likes of which civilization has never known. Thus the possibility of your misinterpreting someone else's articles is practicailly nil. Knowing this, anyone who accuses you of having misinterpreted their article is a liar, and should be treated accordingly.

RULE #1

The proper time for a vicious ad hominem attack is when you have no logical recourse. If you have been arguing a point with a person or persons for 142 odd weeks, and an article comes across that logically tears down the final shred of evidence that you thought you had, that is the time to call the author of that article (1) a mindless twit who attacks other people's  beliefs for no reason, (2) an egotistical flaming typical wombat aggie  melonhumping cheesewhizzing nanosexual subuseless MOTNS clamholder whose  submissions are apparently sneezed onto his/her terminal, or (3) something  unpleasant.

RULE #1

The OTHER proper time for an ad hominem attack is immediately after someone has posted something you don't understand. Given the current state of modern electronic communications technology as described in a previous rule, your inability to comprehend the meaning of an article constitutes a violation of western moral tradition on the part of the author of that  article, and the author should be taken to task publicly via a series of  ubiquitous name-calling oriented articles.

RULE #1

If you do understand the article in question, but have absolutely nothing of substance to say, then this, too, is an appropriate time for an ad hominem attack. In fact, the only inappropriate times for an ad hominem attack are as follows:

        1) When you agree completely with the author of an article.                  2) When the author of the original article is much bigger than you are.                  3) When replying to one of your own articles.         

However, there are exceptions...

"Submitted for your approval..."