Article 24692 of talk.origins:
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: The Four Laws of NetSlinging  (Re: Respect for Creationists)
Summary: don't BS
Message-ID: 
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:43:20 GMT
References: <9698.29E766F9@OFA123.FIDONET.ORG>
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 70
 
In article <9698.29E766F9@OFA123.FIDONET.ORG> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice) writes:
> 
>LT> "It has been noted here that t.o. is an unfriendly place.
> 
>This is only a hostile place for lazy thinkers.
 
For your enjoyment and edification, here are The Four Laws of Netslinging,
as promulgated by David Gudeman on sci.philosophy.meta not long ago:
 
Ah.  The kid thinks he wants to be a netslinger (wink to the other
veterans listening in).  Well, kid, there's more to gunslinging on the
net than a quick reply and a nonchalant attitude.  Sure, you might
terrorize the general population with that stuff, but when you're
dealing with a pro, you need a lot more than that.  You've got to know
when to hold'em, know when to fold'em, know when to walk away, know
when to run.  You've got to take your time, hold your breath, and
_squeeeeeeze_ the send key, don't jerk it.
 
You've screwed up badly already (and not just because you've gotten
out of your league), you've gone and snapped out a reply without
carefully re-reading it and it's full of silly errors that any
competent netslinger (me, for example) is sure to take advantage of.
Arguing on the net is not like arguing verbally.  When you argue
verbally you can say ten stupid things and the person you are arguing
with only has time to point out one of them before he forgets the
rest.  When you argue on the net, each stupidity gets redisplayed and
analysed in loving detail. ...  And be careful with definitions, kid...
 
[...]
I wasn't concerned with what you were trying to show, I was concerned
with your method of presenting your point which was not only
gratuitously insulting, but extremely careless as well.  First Law of
Netslinging: if you are going to be insulting, for heaven's sake,
don't be careless.  I can't emphasize that one enough, kid.  The
Second Law of Netslinging is like unto the first: if you are going to
be careless, for heaven's sake, don't be insulting.  Violating these
laws is sure to cause grief.
 
[...]
... you are not hanging out with your high school buddies anymore,
you are in a forum mostly populated by people in technical areas, most
of whom are also quite clever.  Face it, you don't stand out in your
cleverness here.  Until you learn to deal with that, you are going to
have a hard time with the Third Law of Netslinging: assume that your
opponent knows something about the subject that you don't.
 
.... This is rather ironic.  You lambast me for
being unwilling to learn philosophy from you and jeer at people who
learn philosophy from the great philosophers of the past).  No, my
response was meant as a relatively gentle prod to let you know that
(1) you don't know enough about philosophy to make disparaging
comments about it, (2) you have no business insulting people for
carrying on a discussion -- especially in view of the fact that you
clearly know no more about the subject than the arguers do, and (3)
your article was carelessly written.  I could have just come out and
said those things, but I thought a demonstration would be more
effective and less bruising to a tender ego.  But in your own words,
"why did I bother?"
 
[...]
Thank you for this nice demonstration of how foolish a person sounds
discussing a technical term when he doesn't know what it means.  You
have just violated the Fourth Law of Netslinging: _DON'T BS_, the
other party will almost surely call you on it.  You will get off easy
this time though, because although the remaining paragraphs are almost
pure BS, I'm bored with shooting at sitting ducks and I'll just let it
pass.
-- 
					David Gudeman
>gudeman@cs.arizona.edu