LETTERS: SUGGESTED GROUND RULES FOR DEBATE

To the editor:

Note: because of the complex nature of the subject matter of this letter, it will be necessary to occasionally use big, fancy words and make uncommon references (known as metafurs and anallogicalities) with which the reader may not be familiar. I apologize. I tried to avoid overdoing this wherever possible.

Goody, goody gumshoe. It looks like we're fixin' to have a full-fledged, no-holds-barred debate on the alleged threat presented by global warming. State Sen. Peter Kinder recently threw down the goblet when issued a clarinet call for a televised debate on the controversy. evidently, the senator would be taking on unnamed SEMO biology teachers as well as, perhaps, self-described expert and super-smart southern Illinoisan Stephen Schade (see Dec. 7 letter to the editor).

Before the debate takes place, I think it would be helpful to establish certain guidelines. Presumably, both sides would agree to the rules beforehand. This would help ensure that the debate would be informative and interesting and would advance the discussion of the topic toward international consensusness.

Following are some simple suggestions:

1. Use the widely acclaimed 1997-98 edition of "Anarchists Rules for Debate." This would make certain that the most mentally prepared and physically fit debating team would win. In addition, establishing the irredutable 19th century biologist Christopher Darden's survival-of-the-fittest philosophy as the periameters of the debate would make it more interesting to watch on TV as well as more interesting and perhaps more dangerous to watch in person. Cool! This form of debating might be described as extreme debating.

2. In order to make certain that the debaters stick to the topic, allow each participant no more than 312 uses of name calling. However, when debaters resort to name calling, good taste should dictate that they don't use inappropriate language. This, mild characterizations such as tree hugger, wacko environmentalist, environmental fascist, voter pandering pollution apologist and the like would be OK, but it would be deemed out of bounds and below the belt to refer to a member of either team as a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Perotista or Umbdenstockian. After all, there will likely be children in the audience.

3. Have co-moderators. For balance sake and because of the extremely controversial nature of the topic, get strong advocates of both positions to preside over the debate on global warming. For obvious reasons, my personal choices would be Chancellor of Germany Helmet Headcold and Mississippi Republican U.S. Senate Meter Reader Burnt A. Lott.

4. Get both sides to agree on definitions of terminalology pertinent to the debate. For example, all could agree that supposed buildup of harmful gases in the atmosphere is referred to as the green house effect. This refers to the idea that bad gas supposedly comes exclusively from green-colored houses. So, green-colored houses are to be considered destinked from all other houses including little pink ones made famous by the irrefudoubtable rocker John Watermelon Cougar Camp.

5. Finally, for background effect throughout the debate, play the Rolling Rock's classic, "It's a Green House Gas, Gas, Gas."

As a result of my suggestions, I imagine I will in some way be asked to precipitate in and/or orchestrize the debate. True, it is obvious that I know a lot about the topic. As I do biology. Trigonometry. Science book. French I took.

However, I modestly decline. Long ago I decided I would no longer be involved in the debate over warming of any kind, following direct experiences I had with it when I was a mirror youth. Because it made me feel warm all over, I think it was a variation of global warming. But it wasn't called that. What was it called? Bottom warming?

STEVE MOSLEY

Cape Girardeau