Frederick FN Noronha wrote: The ten levels of debate in a JC argument:
* Argue decently. * Reply with questions. * Name-call childishly. * Defend friends, if necessarily angrily. * Cite Andamans, Daman Bridge, Siddhis, and a few other all-time favourites. * Take your debate to other lists, suitably masalafied.... * Remember one comment made 758 days ago. * Blast your education, school/college you attended. * Proffer advice on ethics of journalism, the subject you teach, the culture in agriculture, etc, etc, etc... * Question your language ("English is not an easy language" or some such logic) If you 'graduate' to 8, 9 or 10, it means you're doing pretty well in the debate. On the other hand, get stuck in meaningless papi karma of question-replies-question or I-said-you-said-that-he-said-but-she-did-not-say means you're getting stuck somewhere between the Bermuda triangle and the Bahamas cyclones. Definitely not a good place to be... FN ----------------------------- Dear Rico, Though your 10 levels above are fairly accurate they are not comprehensive. For example you have forgotten the level where Jose Colaco slips into a strange version of Pidgin English. Also the level where he will issue veiled threats to reveal some Very Important Communication from his famous archived Zip Drives. In recent years also he tends to slip into convoluted legalese but that is understandable after his recently acquired legal qualifications. Most importantly Jose Colaco believes that attack is the best defence. Not for a moment will he admit to any of his shortcomings or weaknesses. He will instead attack the person who pointed them out with unrelated counter accusations of his own. I noticed he has already done it to you, Rico, in a subsequent posting. I wonder what's in store for me. Predictable actually. Cheers! Cecil =============