Frequently referred to as the "Rules of Net.Debate", among other things. The Google archives of Netnews show all of the followups to this article, but the article itself is suspiciously missing. In any case, here is a transcript from my own dusty archives...

From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.flame, net.jokes
Subject: THE RULES OF NETNEWS DEBATING
Message-ID: <966@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Aug-84 12:31:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.966

Since it looks like this year, we will witness an autumn the likes of which
we haven't seen since late 1983, with thousands or even hundreds of new net 
users emanating form the halls of academia (to the shores of New Jersey),
it seems like an appropriate time to submit this article on THE RULES OF
NETNEWS DEBATING. I hope you all find it useful. You're welcome in advance.

RULE #1
-------
Any attempt to say that someone's personal beliefs are wrong, even if
you supply evidence to support your claim, is an outright attack. If you show
people a flaw in their logic, they have every right to punch you in the face.

RULE #1
-------
A request for rational discussion usually means that the people making the
request are telling you that they are willing to discuss things rationally
only if you agree with them; anything less would not be rational discussion.

RULE #1
-------
Always assume that whenever you see someone making a statement about "certain
people", "those who shall remain nameless", "assholes", etc., they are talking
about *you*. It is also O.K. to assume that words you don't understand,
like "prestidigitatory", "lapidarian", "energumen", and "buprestid", are also
direct personal attacks aimed at you and/or your loved ones, meriting an
equally vacuous scathing attack in response. Failure to do so results in
many lost opportunities for rational discussion.

RULE #1
-------
Given the incredible advances in sociocybernetics and telepsychology over
the last few years, we are now able to completely understand everyhing that
the author of an article is trying to say. Thank 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
articles is practicailly nil. Knowing this, anyone who accuses you of having
misinterpreted their article is a liar, and should be treated accordingly.

RULE #1
-------
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
142 odd weeks, and an article 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 article (1) a mindless twit who attacks other people's 
beliefs for no reason, (2) an egotistical flaming typical wombat aggie 
melonhumping cheesewhizzing nanosexual subuseless MOTNS clamholder whose 
submissions are apparently sneezed onto his/her terminal, or (3) something 
unpleasant.

RULE #1
-------
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 as described in a previous
rule, your inability to comprehend the meaning of an article constitutes
a violation of western moral tradition on the part of the author of that 
article, and the author should be taken to task publicly via a series of 
ubiquitous name-calling oriented articles.

RULE #1
-------
If you *do* understand the article in question, but have absolutely nothing of
substance to say, then this, too, is an appropriate time for an 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 an article.
        
        2) When the author of the original article is much bigger than you are.
        
        3) When replying to one of your own articles.
        
However, there are exceptions...
--
"Submitted for your approval..."                  Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

Brought to you by
© 2003 - Rich Rosen