History Behind Rule #7

However, everybody reacted differently. Some reactions were: "Stud", "Studette", "Studess", or simply a baffling period of silence. The matter was temporarily resolved through a trial period which involved "The Guns". ("The Guns" are simply the shape one makes with their hand when imitating a gun or a pair of guns.)

A long time ago, it had been deemed that when a female action did demand a stud the event should be followed by a brief period of silence which in turn should be interpreted as,

"I will accept your female declaration of arrogance with a brief period of silence."

But that wasn't deemed satisfactory for obvious reasons.

A small group (of residents on the 9^th floor of Christensen Hall, '92-'93) experimented with "The Guns". The idea evolved with

1. simply pointing at the female subject to
2. a gun pointing, and finally
3. "The Guns" shooting the subject.

Yet The Guns were also deemed unsatisfactory over time because they weren't vocal. The Guns are sign language so they often went unnoticed. A gentleman by the name of Kevin Hock ran into the dilemma of what to do when a female (in this case, his mother) issued an arrogant proclamation from another room. What then? Giving the guns became simply an exercise in futility. The only answer was to come up with an oral form of stud for the female gender.

Several suggestions were thrown on the table: stallion, mare, equine, thoroughbred, etc. Mare seemed to fit the bill. It was short, and effeminate, just what was needed. The author tried to incorporate mare into the rules but even that was unsuccessful due to it's lack of aesthetic value. In short, it didn't sound right.

Analysis of Rule #8: Plural Stud

 
...it has come to my attention that real-life situations indeed exist
where a display of arrogance cannot be properly remedied. 

By "properly", I mean:  normally, by employing the rules of stud, one can
not only point out a declaration of arrogance, but can cause the
originator of the arrogant statement(s) to be angry, embarrassed, humbled,
and can otherwise cause a general feeling of shame/humility - hopefully
causing the aforementioned perpetrator to think twice before the next
display.

The situation [the subject of the letter] occurs in "gender plural"
declarations of arrogance. 

If there is a guy, and a girl, and they did something together that
eventually results in a declaration of arrogance by either one of them:

i.e.:  "we were bridge partners last night and we kicked everyone's ass in
a tournament..." 

the questions then arises:  How does one employ the rules of stud best to
remedy this extreme declaration of arrogance? 

Does one say:  "stud"  (if the male makes the declaration)

or: "queen" (if the female makes the declaration)

or: "studs" (also applying to both but bridging the plural gender gap to
increase the effectiveness of the counter-declaration) 

It would appear that "stud and queen" is the appropriate call.  But the
time required to utter this polysyllabic remedy is such that the
effectiveness is greatly decreased - even if optimum timing is achieved.

I have a personal vested interest in this situation being resolved so i
may continue my one-man assault on the world by
insulting/demeaning/belittling and generally trying to make everyone feel
like shit as often as possible using whatever means necessary...  and this
assault often includes usage of the rules of stud as a weapon.

thanks
tom

The letter was obviously written by someone well versed and experienced (au courant) in the Rules Of Stud® so it was with utmost rigor that attention was given to the matter.

Rule #8 is, in essence, borrowed from a similar rule applied in the Romance languages. In French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese all objects are assigned a gender. In those languages, there exists an explicit guideline by which to address a group of objects encompassing more than 1 gender. If the group is all masculine or a mix of masculine and feminine, it is addressed as masculine. If the group is all feminine then it is addressed as feminine. The principle is of dubious origin and probably dates back to the establishment of Latin from which the Romance languages developed. Its introduction is typically met with resistance by English speakers. Indeed, it takes some getting used to.