Mine would be this:
If you ever put words in someone else's mouth, say someone's tears taste sweet, say "whaaaambulance" (or some variation thereof) or use "QQ" to describe someone else's point of view, you become magically unable to use the internet for 7 days.
If you need it simplified, I'd settle for anyone who uses any form of "Reductio ad absurdum" argument to be struck with Chicken Pox.
So what you're really saying when you want Barack Obama to win is:
"Waaaaah! I'm a bum who wants socialism! Pay for my abortions because I'm an immature 11 year who can't control my genitals!"So what you're saying when you say you want John McCain to win is:
"Waaaaah! I'm an old person! I'm Crotchety McAncient. Give me the blood of innocents and launch us into war with heathen infidels until we destroy the anti-christ with nukes!"Ooh! You ACTUALLY miss New Coke, huh? Somebody call the whaaaambulance! It's the end of the world because you can't drink your crap in a can.The tears of lawyers taste sweet.These yank my chain whenever I see them applied because they assume that anyone who rants, expresses displeasure, discomfort or calls for any kind of change is WHINING, SAD and CRYING. They may, in fact, be angry, miffed, nostalgic, hopeful, helpful or simply rational. But if you don't like what they have to say, you get to define the argument in most of the 'net (most of which is pretty immature) by painting the opposition as a pouty little brat.QQ! Cry more, loser.
This is really the only type of behavior that bugs me online. I don't mind Godwin's Law or stupid horny people looking to cyber or egomaniacs looking for affirmation.
But I HATE the idea of anyone trying to WIN anything based on anything other than direct analysis of the issue. This is the one thing I could probably see myself snapping and becoming a serial killer over. Or at least writing a quasi-intellectual slasher flick about.