"Someone has too much time on their hands."

"I'm out of here."

"I got supportive email, but I won't violate their privacy by posting it."

"Grow up."

"You [category, plural] will stop at nothing to attack [my beloved sacred cow]."

"Grow up."

"I enjoy a lively discussion with people with different views."

"I came here expecting a civil and thoughtful exchange . . ."

Oh noes! Xposts!

What about the sentence-prefix "um"? It is often appended to indomitably stupid lines and memes, for emphasis and amplification.

"Um, I love how everyone feels the need to put words in my mouth."

"Um, looks like someone has too much time on their hands."

"Um, looks like I struck a nerve."

It's all just sour grapes.

"It's all just sour grapes."

Dorinda 6: True, but also "Um, I didn't mean that the way it sounded. Sorry." I think 'um' is a yellow-flag marker, not a red one.

Doroinda @ 6

Um, not always. (On the net, no one can hear you mumble. So you have to write it in.)

"This is just the sort of thing I've come to expect from [category of person]."

"If you [category of person] really cared about [issue]...."

abi 5: Is that an xpostulation?

"Just sayin'"

ur jus jelus!!!11!one!

Specific to book reviews: "How dare you criticize that wonderful book! Have YOU ever written a book?"

(Daresay the second one is less likely to crop up around here, but you never know.)

Xopher @12

"Xposed!" she xclaimed. "It's xactly as you say!"

I have real work to do.

Why are you all so defensive?

Looks like you people are overly invested in [topic].

I'm just trying to understand what people here think.

Why do you censor comments?

Oh I see, dissent isn't welcome here.

I know I'm just going to get labeled a troll, but [insert trolling here].

How dare you trash something you know nothing about!

"I don't understand what I've done to earn this hostility."

I'm just saying what everyone really thinks. (Alternately, "There, I said it.")

Anything including the phrase "PC Police" or "I don't believe in being PC." (Also, "I'm not racist/sexist, but [insert racist/sexist statement here]")

Jeez, calm down.

"It's free speech, and I can say anything I want."

(unspoken corollary 1: You are not free to critisize my ideas)
(unspoken corollary 2: This website is somehow run by the United States Congress)

You [disgust|threaten|worry|annoy] me, I'm leaving.

"If you get upset, that shows there's truth in the charge."

"It's just electrons. Don't take it seriously."

"Clearly you aren't interested in facts around here."

"This is the internet, not real life!" (Therefore I can be nasty in ways I allegegly wouldn't in person or on the phone, because in writing on the net is somehow exempt from normal rules of courtesy and politeness. Personally I want to kill fucktards who use this one.)

"I challenge you to show me where I said [X]."
"You're quoting me out of context."
"That's an ad hominem attack."
"I don't understand what you all are so upset about."
"You seem to be taking this rather personally."

"I've put on my flame proof underpants..."

I have been repeatedly attacked with senseless ad hominem arguments.

No offense meant.

(Specially when offense really was meant.)

...

Or as Terry Pratchett puts it, "...William wondered why he had always disliked people who said "no offense meant." Maybe it was because they found it easier to say "no offense meant" than actually to refrain from giving offense."

I was only making a joke!

You're too sensitive.

You never miss an opportunity to...

Why don't you just shut up.

You can't take a joke.

Get a clue.

[Parthian commentators, who announce they're leaving or not going to read comments by specific people anymore, but nonetheless do a bashing session as their departure note/stop reading note.]

Don't bother replying to this [abusive commentary], I'm not going to read anything more you write.

We heard you the first time.

[sarcastic remark I can't think of the exact words of at the moment, it's a very common one, regarding the person's opinion wasn't coming across (when it was quite clear) something about]

Nobody wants to hear what you have to say

We've heard this before

Another obnoxious post from [person]

You don't know what you're talking about

I heard that twenty years ago from smarter people than you

So-an-so says [call to Authority]

We're supposed to be adults in here

That's off-topic

"The lurkers support me in email" (very similar to the line in post #1)

"No hostility/offence/X intended but.. "

Not necessarily used for flaming, often just grumbling, but it drives me nuts every single time I see it:
"Am I the only one who...[fairly common opinion]" (often followed by "doesn't like" or "can't stand")

The urge to yell back "Yes, you are the only person on the whole internet who doesn't like Harry Potter/never watched Buffy/thought the Star Wars prequels sucked/hates spam" gets stronger and stronger.

[when in a discussion about something that makes their side look bad]

You're just a bunch of hypocrites for going on and on about that with no regard to [some topic dubiously related to the ongoing conversation that they'd rather change the subject to]

Well, in my experience...

Where I come from...

Why don't you people...

All the lurkers agree with me.

LOL Fckng sshls! LOL

I call 'em as I see 'em, and I'm not going to apologize for that.

"X doesn't mean what you think. We need to define our terms carefully."

You're in denial about [my pet worry].

Here is the psychological explanation for why you fail to agree with me on [my pet issue].

Everyone knows [my pet idea] is true, but they don't dare say so.

You just don't understand the importance/urgency of [my pet issue]. (Often followed by howls of "WHY DON'T YOU GUYS SEE THAT THIS PET ISSUE OF MINE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE ON EARTH!!!!!")

[My pet issue] is important because of [this bizarre attrocity story]. (Implying that if you don't go along, you agree with the attrocity story.)

You're just arguing that way because [my pet issue] doesn't affect you.

You're just arguing that way because you hate [the group that I claim to benefit from my pet issue].

Opposing [my pet issue] is really supporting [some universally hated bugbear--Hitler, Osama, the Klan, etc.].

And many more. Note that some of these appear in real conversations, good arguments, etc., but they hardly ever stand alone in good comments, IMO.

[Along the lines suggested by Matt @ 21]

Hlp, hlp, 'm bng rprssd!

I haven't seen this one as much in the last five years, but for the record:

I'm going to post in every related group what a jerk/bitch/asshole/bastard you are, and everyone will know about the horrible things you have said to me.*

*yeah, because that always makes me look bad. ::snort::

Dang, someone took the lurkers away!

Okay, how about
"I'll report you to your boss!"

[In a discussion about a certain class of people being victimized] Yeah, well, [story about that class of people victimizing someone else, meaning "well, they deserve it"].

There was a huge and painful misunderstanding here based on a comment that structurally resembled the above pernicious meme.

"I'll only agree that (your point) is (valid) when you agree that (this completely unrelated arguing point) is also (true, real, should be brought into the argument)"

and the ever popular, "Clinton (did it too)/(was worse)."

"I am a Republican."

#33 is very common.

"I'm getting my clock cleaned arguing for why invading Iraq was a good idea, but what I want to know is, why you guys don't have anything bad to say about the terrorists who killed all those women and children in the Baghdad market last week?"

Anything offensive followed by a smiley. Especially on forums that allow emoticon pictures, in which case you may get entire sets of winking, grinning, smirking, tongues-sticking-out round faces trying to pretend that whatever was just said was all in good fun.

* [name] dons his/her flame retardant diapers
* I, for one, welcome our new X overlords
* In soviet russia [noun] [verb] [noun]
* I am not trying to start a flame war, but...
* How old are you? 14?

Teresa, have you mined the fossilized argument?

Flame away!

Your opinion doesn't matter to me at all.

Actually, I find this whole thing funny. By all means, continue to amuse me.

Wow, did I hit a nerve?

A common astroturfish pattern is more like

"I am a lifelong Democrat, but I've had to start voting Republican over [[my pet issue]]."

(Though Democratic astroturf would reverse this. The point is just to make the fake testamonial more sympathetic or believeable.)

I've noticed this on CSPAN call-ins enough for them to feel like a pattern.

I tell it like it is.

Hey, I have the right to say whatever I want!

I can't believe how mean you people are. I was just expressing an *opinion*. Doesn't everyone have opinions?

You people are so rude, just because I'm new here.

(Just)? (face|admit|accept) it, .

I find this one irritating even in the rare event that I agree with the assertion. My inner five-year-old goes IS NOT.

"I'll grant you that my premises X, Y, and Z are wrong in the particulars, but my larger point still stands."

"As a [member of political or ideological group], I believe [groundless supposition]."

"Blah blah blah blah 'political correctness'; blah, blah blah politically incorrect blah blah."

"I was only poking fun."

"Don't worry, the grownups will take care of it."

"I expected a group of [insert type of group here] folks to be [enlightened|loving|accepting|welcoming|more evolved]. But you people are a bunch of [unenlightened|hateful|rejecting|cliquish|troglodyte] [insert plural noun for male or female animal or genitalia here]."

"You're just like the girls in high school."

The deprecating "just" in defense of the indefensible is a key marker:

"I was just suggesting that..."
"I just said..."
"It's just that..."

Synonyms include "all" and "only":

"All I said was..."
"I was only trying to..."

Steve @ #26:

"I don't understand what you all are so upset about."
"You seem to be taking this rather personally."

Bonus points if the person making that statement has made deliberately upsetting or personal arguments.

Oh, yeah? I challenge you to prove me wrong.

[Not that I've made any serious attempt to prove *me* right; I'm just going to assert myself right by default, and put the burden on you to argue otherwise.]

You [freaks] explain to me why you're so [freakish]

I.e along the lines of: You sci-fi fans explain to me why you're so overinvested in worthless stuff and then the big defense is "I'm just trying to understand, jeez chill it's just the internet" when people get upset.

An old one, now disappearing, thank goodness: "I don't know why they let you amateurs have computers. If you can't (program in at least three languages/build your own microchips from sand) that's your own fault. You shouldn't bother the experts with stupid questions."

Conversely, here are two that haven't often been used, but have actually stopped traffic:

The late Ed Sunden's immortal "Oh yeah? Well, your ass and my face, man! Your ass and my face!"

And the classic, "Do you walk to school, or carry your lunch?"

Feminazi

He doesn't have any balls

You always make this a gender issue

Shut up, bitch

You're acting like one of my children

I taught my kids to behave

You're off the topic / keep to the point

That's not relevant

'9/11' plus anything

It brings out the conspiracy theorists every time.

On any topic that involves data or statistics:

"How can you say the data supports you, when I have a personal anecdote of the exact opposite thing happening?!?"

i.e.
"Why do you say that a safety recommendation is safe, when I have a personal anecdote of someone dying, so how can it be safe?"
or
"I've done the unsafe thing all my life and I'm still alive, so there!"

"So much for liberals being open-minded."

"Sorry I couldn't look up every little detail [regarding facts that would have undermined my last vituperation]. Some of us have this thing called a life."

My spouse/parent/co-worker/guy I met on the subway is an expert in [area being discussed] therefor my opinion should be given more weight.

Condescending constructions of the form "Hint: Bacon is made from pigs" or "Clue: Hawaii and Norway are not near each other."

On a website I'm involved with, we ran into a user who, when caught in an apparent lie, replied that as a "strong believer in [religion]", he could not possibly be lying. That one may be unique.

Someone not just threatening to complain to your boss, but actually doing so, a la scam literary agent Barbara Bauer.

As far as I'm concerned, not a single one of your points has been proven. (Said after one's opponents have exhaustively documented and logically analyzed every argument to date.)

#42 ::: Xopher :::

which bears a striking resemblance to the ever-popular:

what [group of which i am not a part] need to do to [choose 1: improve their credibility... win an election... get my sympathy... deserve public services for which they already pay taxes... purge their ranks of extremists... behave/appear in a manner more resembling myself... i could go on] is...

my own favorite flamism for which i take full responsibility in using to lower the level of discourse: "...and that's why i'm not a liberal, i'm a RADICAL!"

"They laughed at [Galileo|Einstein], too."

"Remember too that" (followed by a bald assertion without any accompanying documentation or supporting information)

"I happened to spot a chance pattern" (the same pattern the poster always reads into everything)

"By an absolute measure" (i.e., a measure that supports the poster's case)

"Disagree with me all you want. But I'm still right - and the facts prove it."

"I'm finding it hard to believe that the [seemingly generally decent people] here would descend so quickly to [namecalling, cannibalism, animal felch fetishes, etc.]"

"Am I still entitled to my own opinion? Is that still allowed around here?" or "You have your opinion, I have mine" or "Our opinions differ so much, we may just have to agree to disagree." [I.e. the retreat to "freedom of opinion" when matters of fact are under discussion.]

"I predict that after you've calmed down and had a chance to think this over rationally, you'll see that I'm right." Or the simpler version: "Your emotions are blinding you to the truth here."

[Opponent makes important, subtle distinction.] "Oh, sure, if you're willing to dream up some elaborate example, I'm sure you can prove any point you want. But the simple truth is . . ."

"We're never going to get anywhere if you won't discuss this fairly|civilly|calmly." [Best when opponents have been signally fair|civil|calm and complainant hasn't.]

"Well, guess what? I don't have to answer to you." [Especially after poster has been "demanding" answers.]

"Some of us here are trying to have a civil discussion . . ."

Tim Walker (73): the really short version: "arguing from emotion."

"Most of you are probably just sock puppets trying to make me feel paranoid."

Kathryn 64:

The other side of this is attempts to discredit by handwave almost any statistical, scientific, or experimental evidence that's unpleasant or inconvenient.

Common phrases (all sometimes valid):

"Yeah, but correlation is not causation." (No, but that nice straight line on the scatterplot still wants an explanation.)

"They're partisan/biased/etc." (Maybe so, but you need to establish why that means that information from them is worthless in general, or that this information is worthless.)

"That doesn't prove X" (often iteratively applied, when someone *really* doesn't want to believe X, until they've backed into some kind of impossible demand for evidence--I won't believe in evolution till I see the damned bacteria evolve feet and walk out of my lab.).

"That study/survey/experiment/data is flawed/biased." (Maybe so, but that statement needs some justification, and just because the study sucked, doesn't mean there's no data to be had from it, or that it supports your POV.)

You'll sometimes see people toss whole fields off this way. By definition, nothing climate scientists have to say is valuable, because we all know they're all just trying to sell global warming. Similarly, psychometrics, economics, genetics, evolutionary biology, all can be written off because the fields (or prominent subfields) are producing theories and evidence that fits better with one political viewpoint than with another.

Again, it's 100% legit to call evidence or scientific arguments into question. But there's a way of doing it that amounts to "I don't want to believe this, fingers in ears, la la la," which features prominently in many deadlocked conversations.

"I already told the moderator about you. They're going to ban you now."

(Particularly amusing if it's on my own site and the troll doesn't realize they just told the site owner she's going to get banned.)

And any attack on that insults a person's username, ever.

"Why are you wasting time talking about [X] when there are [children starving in Africa | women being sold into slavery | rising sea-levels in the Maldives | insert other genuine, tangetially connected, but largely irrelevant crisis here]?"

"I suppose that would be true if it weren't for the fact that you are wrong."

"You don't have to be so rude about this."

""I see the whiners are out in force"

#67 ::: Dan MacQueen :::

That one seems to come from the same family of non-argument as: "I'm a church-going Christian, and therefore [I'm morally upright]" or even "I'm a law-abiding taxpayer, and therefore [my thoughts on policy carry as much weight as any expert's]."

~

More:

"Well, now that everybody's ganging up on me . . ." [Especially effective when the schmo is a minority of one for good reason.]

Level-headed opponent says something like "You haven't answered any of So-and-so's objections, and you seem to be ignorant of the basics of copyright law|freelancing|animal husbandry." Flamer says, "Well, if we're just going to get into name-calling . . ."

Tim 73: "I'm finding it hard to believe that the [seemingly generally decent people] here would descend so quickly to [namecalling, cannibalism, animal felch fetishes, etc.]"

Animal felch fetishes? Animal felch fetishes? Animal...FELCH fetishes?

I'd have to say that I'm almost irresistably inclined to doubt that you've ever heard that specific argument used! OTOH, I LMAOed when I read that; best laugh all day.

All of you are [group]. I'm a [some other group]...

...and I can see that you've never studied what [some other group] is.

...and that's why you don't even know you're insulting everyone in [some other group]

...and that's why you don't understand [orthogonal topic].

#61: Are you sure that's not "My ass and your face"? Seems like it would be a more effective insult that way.

"Well, I am a [insert profession], and I have a [insert degree, certificate or other credentials], so ..... My argument/actions or whatever are sancrsact and right and you are ahem -nobody-".

"You picked the wrong person to start a fight with. You will regret this."

"When did you stop beating your wife?" (implication: your question is unreasonable and I don't need to answer it)

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Long screed ended by the sentence:
But I know you're just going to delete this comment/ban me because you can't tolerate dissent.

Re: #64 - It doesn't even have to be anything involving statistics.

Dogs have four legs.
But, I saw a three legged dog in the park yesterday.

Humans have one head.
What about siamese twins?

Xopher (82): You're welcome. Sometime inspiration just strikes you, y'know? ;)

All you've proven is that you're not [smart enough/rational enough/a good enough writer] for me to waste my time responding to.

This is what I get for challenging the groupthink around here.

That everyone here is talking about x just proves once again that none of you care about y, despite the fact that [latest blogscuffle about y]

Nargle nargle nargle nargle nargle A-list blogger nargle nargle.

This is not an example, it's a link to a related discussion. No, really. Please don't get meta-meta on me.

But Suzette Haden-Elgin hosted a really fascinating discussion on just this topic a while back. She's coming to the topic as a linguist, but also someone trying to apply her considerable expertise in conflict resolution to an online situation. It starts with attack patterns in written language, and you can follow most of the discussion by reading the next few consecutive posts.

83 posts and not one reference to Godwin yet? Wow. Slacking. ;)

And for the true flavor, all of the above should be badly spelled/capitalized, of course.

Damn, I forgot the trifecta: Shave your palms, move out of your mother's basement and get a life.

"I bet you were [fat/ugly/unpopular] in high school!"

God, you all are a bunch of sheep/lemmings/silent Germans in the 30's/brainless followers.

I just chatted with [long-gone and fondly missed former member of the forum] and he/she agrees with me.

By extension from #96: "You know, Gandhi said [quote that could be construed to support my point], but it was Joseph Goebbels who said [something I'm going to assert applies to your argument or style of argument]."

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but...

This is just my opinion/I'm sorry, but...

What you people don't understand is that your position is completely flawed.

You're just saying that because you're female, and everyone knows how well females handle logic.

There are far more important things to worry about than that! (The "Think of the starving children in Africa!" move.)

You don't really feel that way.

Well, I didn't expect to find [favorite opposition group/spreader of injustice] here.

Most recently Strikethrough 07 (which I suspect will become a new Godwin for certain communities over on livejournal.)

"[X] is a straw man, the only important issue is [Y]"

In response to almost literally identical parallel scenario: "Red herring."

"But it's not my definition. It's the definition."

"The fact that it's right makes it right."

After an analogy with an offensive subtext: "No subtext was implied." Then: "I also don't pick analogies for subtext, by the way." Oh, that makes it all better!

"Now, tell me: what kind of person is so terrified of dissenting viewpoints that they will silence them at any opportunity? Answer: the fascist liberal."

After starting the name-calling with the previous statement: "This is how your type always work: you lack the ability to sustain any logical debate on the topic, so you attempt to quash any dissent through intimidation, name-calling ('bigot', 'Nazi', etc), and any other forceful means you deem necessary." NB: The closest anyone came to the term 'Nazi' was the troll himself in calling me a fascist liberal.

"Your type like to throw around these pejorative labels for anybody who doesn't agree with you."

"I can guarantee you if a [social cause political action] group [that I wrongly assume your position about] were to swing some similar backroom deal [when no such 'backroom deal' occurred] you'd be screaming from a mountain top."

After being thoroughly refuted: "Generally, one is required to refute a point before claiming it is incorrect. You have yet to do so - as you cannot - so it still stands."

After being warned and then banned/screened: "One wonders at the mentality of a person who takes every precaution possible to silence dissenting opinion - but that was the point of this whole discussion anyway, wasn't it?"

After dozens of statements illustrating the reverse: "I don't think I should have to point out that I'm not homophobic, nor am I a bigot."

"At the time I wrote the first (anonymous) reply I simply thought not telling you "hey it's [identity/relationship]" would stir a more lively debate."

Excuses for trolling: "Sometimes it's boring being smart and you have to find a way to exercise it."; "Nobody debates anything anymore. How does anybody know when they're right?"

Every single one of these was offered by a troll who found my personal journal and decided to pick a fight (claiming the eye-rollers in comments #3 and #4 here) -- first anonymously (in a response to a friend's comment), then through a faked account, then through a sockpuppet after the anonymous access and fake account were blocked, and finally through direct email.

I'm not rude, just honest.

Michelel72: So many of them claim they're into debate. Drives me crazy.

I'm not a [person qualified to make assertions about X], but [grotesque assertion that no one with even a passing familiarity with X would make].

Fark has one that crops up in comment threads all the time (though, now, just in mocking reference) that starts:

"I'm a (member of group/employee of company/etc.) and I'm really getting a kick out of these replies."

I think this one's been posted about here before:

The reality is [my opinion].

After I say that, you see, you're supposed to agree that any other opinion is just sentimental nonsense.

I'm sorry you can't handle the truth.

Well, out here in the reality based world blah blah blah.

Why are you a public group if you won't welcome new ideas and new people? Are you scared of original thinking?

I'm sorry you find me intimidating.

"You're holding me to a higher standard than anyone else around here is."

References to the clique (usually spelled click), cabal, in-group or, my favorite, "you fascists who run this place".

Wow.

Just.

Wow.

I call this "Shatcasm" after the actor whose style it seems to approximate.

"You don't know me."

My all-time favourite piece of invective, in the midst of a usenet flame war on alt.peeves in, IIRC, 1992, began with the following vivid image:

"Now let us peel back the foreskin of misconception and apply the wire brush of enlightenment ..."

I like the "leading questions" style of argument, especially when it's written in such a patronizing way that the respondent will never respond to the first question that's supposed to be leading up to the Gotcha questions.

"I'm honestly puzzled about why you feel this way, Bob, because I've frankly never heard that opinion here. Would you support, for example, [ludicrously uncontroversial proposition]? How about [statement of Bob's position in such a way that the speaker clearly does not understand why Bob holds this position]? Finally, now that you've seen those two, would you agree with [insane ramblings]? I'd be curious to know why you think Proposition C doesn't follow from Propositions A and B. Feel free to email me privately if you're embarrassed."

Here is a brilliant example of the form "Person who has never seen the group before swoops in, makes a false assumption based on one data point which she should easily have seen was contradicted by hundreds of other data points, criticizes the post line-by-line using absolutely no arguments that do not depend on her initial false assumption, and then swoops out again, leaving the regulars nonplussed". The surprising part is that so much effort was put into it.

"Wikipedia says..."

"Well, that's exactly what I would expect to hear from [vilified group]."

"My emotional investment in this issue is extremely large; therefore my arguments are irrefutable."

I'm sure I'm going to get lynched for saying this, but...

If it's so important for [minority group] to have the freedom to live their weird and perverted lifestyle, why don't I have the freedom to live my normal, regular life and think badly of the weirdoes if I want to?

You call everyone who disagrees with you a bigot! That's how you silence anybody you don't like!

How come prejudice against normal heterosexual white men is still acceptable, when you can't say a word about any minorities without the PC brigade jumping on you?

What do you hope to gain by acting like the thought police?

"I can see I'm not welcome here. This place is just an echo chamber."

Well, that's how your side argues!

What? I thought all you _________ believed _______.

Let me put this into nice, short words for you.

Butbutbut... think of the CHEEELdren!

The first little pig called. He wants his straw back. (Sorry, just made that one up.)

I solemnly certify that #114 wasn't showing when I wrote #118.

"I don't know how you (people) do things around here, but where I'm from..."

"Seems to me all you care about is winning. All right, you win, I leave. All that I wanted was some kink of constructive discussion."

"Hey, it's only the internet"

This thread is fastly turning into a new circle of hell. I really feel sheltered from (by ? -_^)life that I hardly ever saw many of the lines cited here.

My favourites from one particular flame war (paraphrased for generality)

"Just because [insulting description of opponent] doesn't understand [previously advanced argument] doesn't mean it isn't valid."

(From somebody who isn't a forum administrator:) "Say that again and you will be banned."

"Your logic is hopelessly flawed" (with no explanation of why)

"You're a one-note samba propagandist" (yes, that's actually a phrase that has been used to describe me...)

"It's only a movie."

"Prove it from an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."

"I was trying to take the high road, but now that YOU'VE made this personal, I'm allowed to argue using nothing but ad hominem attacks."

"If I had known you were so oversensitive about that . . ."

"Well, if somehow, somebody found that offensive, I'm sorry."

All that I wanted was some kink of constructive discussion.

If your kink is constructive discussion, a lot of sites will be pretty erotically frustrating.

Cryptic Ned @ #125

Starting with Fark

"Cite, please."

(Not as a genuine request for background reason, but repeated two or three times interleaved in quoted text, as an attempt to put the other guy in a tail-chasing spin of citation-searching. If citations are actually produced to back up the argument, the demander-of-citations will then change the topic or focus on some other less-examined aspect. In other words, it's a diversionary strategy rather than a serious request.)

@Cryptic Ned (#125): I proofread, spot the typo, and leave it. Pure logic at work.

It was worth it, though.

(Again, pure, uncut, logic at work.)

Also: I feel so impotent right now.

So (just to pick an example at random) what is one supposed to say when one is subjected to senseless ad hominem attacks (which is an invalid debating technique even when the attacker is right and the attackee is wrong)?

Seriously. If all these lines (predominantly responses to conflicting argument of one sort or another) are decreed to be stupid and pernicious memes regardless of the validity of the conflicting argument, no-one is going to be able to say anything to anybody. The stupidity and perniciosity of them is dependent on the context, as indicated here by the frequent addenda in brackets, all of which boil down to (when the other person is right).

I would contend that it's at least theoretically possible that some if not most of these lines could be validly employed by someone who was in fact in the right, or at least not provably in the wrong. In any case, I get a little antsy about the exclusion from discourse (even by implication) of any linguistic construct in the abstract.

[the editorial we ]

We should...

We all know...

[etc].

[One person acting as though that person's opinion is the majority, and authoritative, view]

Zander......that was pretty meta, right there.

(The answer is that yes, of course some of these could be employed in good faith, and have actually been employed in arguments on this very board, even ones in which no one got banned or disemvowelled. It's all about context.)

Zander (#129): The point here is that these are things that flamers write, not to exclude all of the statements from discourse per se. Some of these objections are reasonable to make when they're actually true; e.g. "You're answering my evidence and arguments with nothing but ad hominem attacks." (I've certainly said that myself, when I thought it was true.) But plenty of the statements cited here *should* be excluded from civil discourse.

~

Pursuant to #115: "This is a very emotional issue for me, therefore I get to rant, while everyone else has to tiptoe around my grief."

Let's see if I can remember the one I found the most stinging... hmmm...

"Does it bother you that you have no idea what you're blathering about?"

Or something close to that.

I hang out on a couple of evolution/creation mailing lists and those _all_ get some serious workouts. My favorite, though, would have to be the dogpiled disappearance:

[Posts rambling screed full of half-truths, non-sequiturs and pure mis-information]

[Gets a dozen responses picking apart the misinformation point-by-point]

"Those were some very interesting replies, but unfortunately, I have a life/job/hobby/ingrown toenail, so it'll be a while before I can respond to all of you."

[vanishes without responding to _anything_ and/or posts another rambling mis-informed screed as if nothing had happened]

Since both sides are attacking me, I must be doing something right.

After acrimonious exchange, instigator says, "You believed me? I just wanted to see what would happen if I said/advocated horrible thing/deliberate lie".

Alternately, anybody who "plays devil's advocate."

"If you look at the strict dictionary definition of the words I used, ignoring the common connotations that are familiar to any native speaker, I didn't say anything insulting."

See, for example, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss in Scientific American recently.

One I am seeing muchly this past week:

"You people are all vicious sharks! There's no point talking to you."

Just within the last two days, I've received:

"You have transcended the barrier separating protected commentary from libel. I urge you to retract. "

And my favorite, an email with no words, just a picture of myself, and my address posted in the subject line.

"I'll sue."
"I know a hacker, you'll be sorry." (Usually followed up by attempts to subscribe a mailing list to several other mailing lists.)

Both less common anymore.

Fck them if they can't take a joke.

You just can't think straight.

The president is doing god's work, and you secular humanists can't understand that.

You want the terrorists to win.

Eric@134: Ah, the anti-scientific flamer! I notice a key part of their toolkit is something like this:

"Some expert once said something that was wrong, so therefore we cam safely dismiss all subsequent inconvenient expert claims!"

So they carry around in their knapsack things like "Piltdown man, 1912!", "Newsweek 'global cooling' hype, 1970!",and the like. Doesn't matter how long ago it was, or how many experts actually endorsed it, it's there ready to pull out when you need to dismiss a dangerously high concentration of expert arguments from people who know what they're talking about.

n00bs

real haxx0rs use gentoo linux

u suxx0rs r all m$crosheep

i will pwn ur windoze box, steal all ur pr0n

I believe in speaking honestly, no holds barred.

I don't believe in giving in to the political correctness nazis.

I have no opinion about this issue. I just think [opinion].

I am the kind of person who...

Ooh! Ooh! I got another:

You just don't understand my uniquely special experience of total specialness, so STFU.

"Say what you will, but the lurkers can read the archives and draw their own conclusions." They can and they do, but not the conclusions you think they do.

"I think the record of this discussion speaks for itself." It does, but not in the way you think it does.

"Well, if you were a -real- (publisher/writer/coder/whatnot) you'd know that..." Bonus points if the target is a real (publisher/writer/coder/whatnot)

"You all have serious psychological issues to get this obsessed with me."

"You have your job mentioned in your sig! Does your boss/company know you're espousing your personal views as company policy?"

"You accuse my group of intolerance towards group X in the United States. But what about intolerance of my group by China/Iran/Saudi Arabia?"

God has a plan, even if you're not able to see it.

Why don't you just adopt?

Oh, you have cancer? You know, that's caused by [X]

[meta] All I can say is that this is going to make for one VERY LARGE BINGO BOARD when we're all through.

Sternel @92: 83 posts and not one reference to Godwin yet? Wow. Slacking. ;)

[meta]By the way, I offer pro bono Godwin's Law adjudication services for flamewars where I am a spectator instead of a participant.

Unless you have been (raped, molested by a priest, saved by the Blood of the Lamb, abducted by aliens) you cannot possibly comprehend what I am talking about.

Can you substantiate that?

(My arguments must be taken for granted. Yours must be proven to my satisfaction. Good luck.)

Far be it from me to interrupt your little games.

I'm not going to stoop to your level.

There's been a long succession of posts over at soc.genealogy.medieval on hether or not a particular woman was married and had a child at the age of 12 - this is in late 17th-century Virginia. The person who started it off and was insisting (loudly and at great length) that the woman was in fact a 12-year-old mother never produced any evidence that she was in fact married at that age or the mother of the child allegedly born when she was 12. There was a lot of handwaving and 'you aren't paying attention to my evidence' and 'this document' [quoted] 'proves my point' (it didn't even have any evidence to the point). Forty-some messages later, the person dropped out of the discussion, because, they said, they'd spent enough time on it.