This was posted to the  NANOG mailing list sometime in 2004 by Alex Bligh -- it remains true....

This argument (at least on NANOG) seems to be characterized by the following

1. A suggests X, where X is a member of S, being a set of largely well known

2. B1 ... Bn, where n>>1 says X is without value as X does not solve
   the entire problem, each using a different definition of "problem".

3. C1 ... Cn, where n>>1 says X violates a "fundamental principle of
   the internet" (in general without quoting chapter & verse as to
   its definition, or noting that for its entire history, fundamental
   principles, such as they exist, have often been in conflict, for
   instance "end-to-end connectivity", and "taking responsibility for
   ones own network" in the context of (for instance) packets sourced
   from etc.)

4. D1 .. Dn, where n>>1 says X will put an enormous burden on some
   network operators and/or inconvenience users (normally without
   reference to the burden/inconvenience from the problem itself,
   albeit asymmetrically distributed, and normally without reference
   to the extent or otherwise that similar problems have been
   solved in a pragmatic manner before - viz route filtering, bogon
   filtering etc.)

5. E1 .. En, where n>>1 insert irrelevant and ill-argued invective
   thus obscuring any new points in 1..4 above.

6. Goto 1.