1. Be aggressive at every opportunity.
2. Be dogmatic. Assert rather than debate. Be convinced of the rightness of your position. Ignore any hint of irony that may result.
3. Assume that everyone else is hanging upon your every word. Failure to respond to one of your brilliantly insightful points is a sign that the person has admitted the correctness of your opinion and repented.
4. Where possible, miscontrue other people's meaning or intent. Given the ambiguities of language, this is achievable at least 90 per cent of the time.
5. Be selective in your reading and comprehension. Pay attention to no more than one sentence per post. Where possible, avoid selecting a key sentence in the poster's argument.
6. Avoid reading posts in context. Pay no attention to any previous posts by the same person.
7. Ignore rule 6 for the purposes of pointing out an apparent inconsistency, but never ignore rule 5.
8. Be pedantic, especially when invoking rule 7.
9. Use insults on a regular basis. Begin by insulting opinions contrary to yours at a general level, then move on to insulting opinions of individuals. At a later stage, insult the intelligence of anyone who has persisted in posting.
10. If things really get going, turn people's names into something vaguely insulting. If you struggle with this step, consult a schoolboy under the age of 14 for expert advice.
Originally posted by orfeoCorrection...
1. Be aggressive at every opportunity.
2. Be dogmatic. Assert rather than debate. Be convinced of the rightness of your position. Ignore any hint of irony that may result.
3. Assume that everyone else is hanging upon your every word. Failure to respond to one of your brilliantly insightful points is a sign that the person has admitted the correctness ...[text shortened]... . If you struggle with this step, consult a schoolboy under the age of 14 for expert advice.
95% of RHP users concise spiritual debating guide.
That sounds more realistic, anyone who wants not to agree? Is the figure to low? 😉
Originally posted by NickstenMany try to apply these rules, but I can't think of any others who have mastered all of them. Only howard has reached true enlightenment.
Correction...
95% of RHP users concise spiritual debating guide.
That sounds more realistic, anyone who wants not to agree? Is the figure to low? 😉
Originally posted by orfeoI have to remind you that many are trying their very best to master the master which gives me the following conclusion...
Many try to apply these rules, but I can't think of any others who have mastered all of them. Only howard has reached true enlightenment.
Trying to Master
+ No one stopping them
--------------------------
= Will become one of the Masters
=GETVALUE([Will become one of the Masters]+[My Opinion])
GETVALUE = oink oink
*I think I'm gonna be liked 😉
Originally posted by orfeoOrfeo's technique can be summed up in 2 words: be wrong.
1. Be aggressive at every opportunity.
2. Be dogmatic. Assert rather than debate. Be convinced of the rightness of your position. Ignore any hint of irony that may result.
3. Assume that everyone else is hanging upon your every word. Failure to respond to one of your brilliantly insightful points is a sign that the person has admitted the correctness ...[text shortened]... . If you struggle with this step, consult a schoolboy under the age of 14 for expert advice.
"4. Where possible, miscontrue other people's meaning or intent. Given the ambiguities of language, this is achievable at least 90 per cent of the time."
I assume you mean "misconstrue" here. Or did I miscontrue you?
Originally posted by howardgeeOh God it's like you fufilled every single point in one succinct post.
Orfeo's technique can be summed up in 2 words: be wrong.
"4. Where possible, miscontrue other people's meaning or intent. Given the ambiguities of language, this is achievable at least 90 per cent of the time."
I assume you mean "misconstrue" here. Or did I miscontrue you?
Originally posted by howardgeeI sure love good irony. Absolutely brilliant sir!
Orfeo's technique can be summed up in 2 words: be wrong.
"4. Where possible, miscontrue other people's meaning or intent. Given the ambiguities of language, this is achievable at least 90 per cent of the time."
I assume you mean "misconstrue" here. Or did I miscontrue you?
Originally posted by orfeowait a sec, you misspelled "no1marauder" in the thread title.
1. Be aggressive at every opportunity.
2. Be dogmatic. Assert rather than debate. Be convinced of the rightness of your position. Ignore any hint of irony that may result.
3. Assume that everyone else is hanging upon your every word. Failure to respond to one of your brilliantly insightful points is a sign that the person has admitted the correctness ...[text shortened]... . If you struggle with this step, consult a schoolboy under the age of 14 for expert advice.
Originally posted by zeeblebotI thought of that. He fails on rules 3 and 10 at least (my two personal favourites), and arguably on 5 and 6, and therefore 7.
wait a sec, you misspelled "no1marauder" in the thread title.
Probably 8 as well, seeing as how he normally assaults substance and not spelling.
Originally posted by orfeoHe's shown promise at #10 - for example, changing "chancremechanic" into "cancerousmechanic".
I thought of that. He fails on rules 3 and 10 at least (my two personal favourites), and arguably on 5 and 6, and therefore 7.
Probably 8 as well, seeing as how he normally assaults substance and not spelling.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemReally? Must have missed that one.
He's shown promise at #10 - for example, changing "chancremechanic" into "cancerousmechanic".
EDIT: Sorry, forgot the rules. What I should have said was that Doggs can't read, your hyphen should have been a full stop, and that seeing as how I know everything you're so obviously mistaken I don't need to acknowledge that you may have a point.
