[Prev][Next][Index]

from Fortune's Rules for Memo Wars

I know some people who believe this....

------- Forwarded Message

Subject: from Fortune's Rules for Memo Wars

(found on a computer at a previous employer)

Now...your opponent has requested a "rational discussion".  What do
you do?  Well, remember that people are normally willing to discuss things
rationally if and only if you agree with them; anything less would obviously
not be rational.  Therefore, agree immediately, and continue as before.

Always assume that whenever you see someone making a statement about
"certain parties who shall remain nameless", "some people", "assholes", etc.,
they are talking about *you*.  It is also correct to assume that words you
don't understand, such as "prestidigatory", "lapidarian", and "buprestid",
are direct personal attacks aimed at your loved ones and merit an equally
scathing response.  Failure to do this results in many lost opportunities for
rational discussion.  (See above.)

Given the incredible advances in sociocybernetics and telepsychology over 
the last few years, we are now able to completely understand everything that
the author of a memo is trying to say.  Thanks 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
memo is practically nil.  Knowing this, anyone who accuses you of having
done so is a liar, and should be treated accordingly.  If you *do* understand
the memo in question, but have absolutely nothing of substance to say, then
you have an excellent opportunity for a vicious 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 a memo.
	2: When the author of the original memo is much bigger than you are.
	3: When replying to one of your own memos.

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
30 odd weeks, and a memo 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 memo:

	1: a mindless twit who attacks other people's beliefs for no reason.
	2: an egotistical flaming typical wombat aggie melon-humping
	    cheese-whizzing nanosexual subuseless clamsucker whose
	    memos are apparently sneezed onto his/her terminal.
	3: something unpleasant.

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 your inability to comprehend the meaning
of a memo constitutes a violation of western moral tradition on the part of 
the author of that memo, and the author should be taken to task publicly via
a series of really nasty, name-calling oriented memos.

------- End of Forwarded Message