Subject: How To Post To Alt.Slack
Date: 3 Jan 1999 03:44:49 GMT
From: Modemac <email@example.com>
Organization: The Internet Access Company, Inc.
How To Post To alt.slack
Modified from an article posted to alt.fan.furry:
[ From: StukaFox <firstname.lastname@example.org> ]
[ Subject: [alt.fan.furry] 10 Rules of Hypocracy on Alt.Fan.Furry (ROHOAFF) ]
[ Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry ]
[ Message-ID: <email@example.com> ]
1) Any thread that questions the authority of the veteran
participants of this newsgroup is a troll.
1a) Anyone that questions the authority of the veteran participants
of this newsgroup is a troll.
1b) Anyone calling into question the behavior of a non-critical
poster is a troll.
1b1) Anyone calling into question the behavior of a critical
poster is simply making a valid point.
2) Those critical of this newsgroup shall be held to a different
standard than those who are not critical of this newsgroup.
2a) Posters deemed "cute" will be held to no standard
3) Any post critical of this newsgroup is a flame.
3a) We don't want flames.
3a1) Unless they're from the non-critical segement of the
"cool" posters, then they're peachy-keen. (see Rule 2)
3b) Oh, yeah -- and people from fringe interests who come
here for the expressed intention of flaming. Them folks
are okay, because even if they're flaming, they're flaming
for reason 4a.
3b1) Provided aforementioned Flamer is not flaming non-critical
posters, posters deemed "Cute" or popular.
3c) Any post critical of a poster deemed a member of the
"Cute" crowd is a flame. "Cute" posters are beyond
reproach, regardless of assininity of their behavior.
4) Flames must be rotundly denounced as being bad for all.
4a) Flaming Flamers is okay, of course, because Flamers are
bad, and bad people deserve to be flamed.
4b) Flaming to stop a flamer-war is okay, because even though
it's flaming, it's the right kinda flaming, and that makes
it all okay.
4c) Those flaming Flamers will be held to a much lower standard
than anyone publically proclaimed a Flamer, because of reason
4d) Any flaming done by a non-critical poster is okay, because
someone else started it, and non-critical posters NEVER
start flame wars!
5) Once a post is proclaimed a "flame" or a "troll", all content
of that post may be ignored, regardless of validity. Remember,
style is everything and substance is meaningless.
6) If a valid point is raised by a person deemed a Flamer, that
point must be immediatley dismissed by the Apologists with
a quick ad hominem post.
6a) Valid points may be rendered null in the following ways:
6a1) Questioning the poster's motivation for making the point.
6a2) Faux phsychoanalys from posters in NO position to talk.
6a2a) Adding faux witty disclaimers is optional.
6a3) Making absurd over-cute follow-up-posts.
6a4) Claiming the poster doesn't meet certain standards of
6a4a) These standards are for critical posters only.
All others may post complete nonsense, and no
outcry will be heard.
6a5) Immediate questioning of the poster's religious background.
6a6) "Bigot", "Hate-Monger", "Intolerant".
6a7) Claiming the poster doesn't meet certain standards of
6a7a) These standards are for critical posters only.
All others may be as nasty as they want to be
with absolutely no rebuke.
6a7b) Adding that you're actually an animal at the end
of any such claim is optional.
6a7c) Claiming that you've kill-filed a person, then
responding to that same person within 24 hours
to make your second claim is optional.
6a8) Immediate dismissal of the poster as a person of no worth,
since if they had any worth, they'd think like us.
6a8a) This works both ways.
6a9) An immediate appeal that the poster MUST STOP POSTING AT
ONCE because this is bad for this newsgroup!
6a9a) Only critical posts are bad for the Fandom.
6a10) As a matter of last resort, a post MUST be made proclaiming
that there is NOTHING wrong in this newsgroup, it's all in
the poster's mind, we must never again have critical posts,
and that if we all think nothing but good thoughts all
those problems that don't exist in the first place will
go away, and peace will reign throughout the land.
6a10a) Adding a war-lord .sig to this claim is optional.
6a10b) Claiming you're actually of the opposite
sex at the end of such posts is also optional.
6a11) Dissmissal of the whole post as unworthy of time or
6a11a) Claiming that all points have been made previous
falls under Rule 6a11.
6a11b) This cuts both ways.
6a12) Replying to original post by cutting out the whole post
and adding a one-word reply.
7) All critical persons must have IMMACULATE behavior, since they
are all representatives of whatever movement they add to their
.sig (whether aforemention movement is stated or not).
7a) Those not making critical posts are free to act as complete
twats without fear of rebuke or as being seen as bad examples
of whatever movement they include in their .sigs.
7a1) Aforementioned posters are just being cute, unlike
those vicious bastards from Rule 1b.
7b) Those making claims of non-immaculate behavior on the
part of critical posters must do such in the single
most self-important way possible, as if their opinion
is the Voice of Authority On This Newsgroup.
7b1) "The Voice of Authority On This Newsgroup" can NEVER
be a critical poster. See Rule 6a10.
8) Thou Shalt Not Swear (if thou art making critical posts)
8a) Any critical posts with a swear-word in it may instantly
dismissed as a flame and Rule 5 goes into effect.
8b) Any counter-reply that contains a swear-word is peachy-keen
because of Rule 2.
8c) The conditions of Rule 6 also apply to Rule 8.
9) If you, in the course of trying to do a good deed for someone
on this newsgroup, get bent over and fucked by that same person,
it's your own goddamn fault for trying to help someone in the
9a) Don't you even try to bring it into a public forum if
the aforementioned fucker is a Famous Person in the Church
Hierarchy. Those people are gods, you piece of shit, and you
go to hell and die for ever trying to seek recourse!
9a1) If you're a Famous Person in the Church Hierarchy, you
can commit rape, repeatedly, and get away with it,
because it's gonna be your word against theirs', and
they're a popular contributor to this newsgroup, and
you're a fucking nobody.
9a1a) It's your fault in the first place.
9a1) You are free to crucify anyone deemed "unpopular"
since if they were a good person, they'd be popular,
ergo they're scum and deserve what they get.
10) CENSORSHIP IS BAD!!
10a) Unless . . .
10a1) The person has put up a web page critical of anyone
here. A campaign may be started to get the page
removed and the person's Internet access revoked.
10a2) The person has violated Rule 9a, in which case a
campaign may be started to have that person banned
from X-Day (or any other Devival), have
their internet access revoked, have their
friends told they can no longer be their friends if
aforementioned friends want to stand ANY chance of
not being harassed out of the Church, or have their
business directly threatend in a manner that falls
just shy of the legal definition of a "terrorist
10a2a) Blatant, criminal libel is okay to use, too.
10a3) The person makes repeated posts critical of this
newsgroup from an anonymous account. A campaign may be
started to have that person's account shut down because
of Rule 1.
Reverend Modemac (firstname.lastname@example.org)
First Online Church of ?