Bravo, Lou Deeptrek, but you left out a few rules. In contributing to the generally mediocre space of the interweb one must keep in mind that the only effective way to engage in arguments, disputes and/or disagreements is to
1. Make use of the ad hominem form of effective argumentation!
2. Make sure that the dispute is always merely verbal, but insist that it’s actually a genuine dispute!
3. Following from 2, be sure to NEVER define terms properly, after all, definitions are intrinscially slippery!
4. Qualify every statement with “Because I said so,” “it is, jerk,” or even, “Willard Quine was my friend, as an undergraduate I bathed him in his later years, that’s fucking why.”
5. Finally, make use of the highly effective method of argumentation called appealing to an authority, but only if this person is not an authority.
If one follows these rules, the mediocre is sure to be “brought.” So bring it, “it” being the mediocre, of course.
Bravo, Paco, your arguments for the rules of the mediocre blogging are preposterously overstated and are all over the place, you know nothing about blogging, do you? as late Derrida use to tell me everytime I made him an omelette in the morning: “Dear Lou, how is it possible that you are making an omelette without breaking all those eggs?” – “Maestro,” I would reply with an arrogant smile, “why don’t you write a fucking book about it?!”
ok, so this comment makes absolutely no sense but I followed the rules: 1) made an ad hominem attack (whatever that means), 2) provoked a verbal dispute, 3) mentioned an important person and my own relationship with him.
may I propose another rule:
6) Always use vocabulary that is opposite of the accepted standard in a particular discussion. If words like “transcendence” or “hypebolic” are used, don’t be afraid to throw in some “fucking” or “bullshit” in there. Wait, this is actually a rule for Awesome Blogging (AB) – nevermind then…
Lou, ad hominem attack is actually the highest form of argumentation, especially on the interweb. Keep up the AB.