terms of engagement - Mitt attackers beware!

The other day I read some negative comments written about Mitt in the Boston Globe. One of the cool things about living in this decade is the ability to blog. Anyone with internet access can respond to anyone about anything (excepting in China and other places) - and the response can be viewed by anyone. The ordinary citizen can respond quickly and in a personal way to reporters and public figures. I must admit it is very tempting to strike back at the negative press toward Romney. I think that I would enjoy making fun of the reporter's writing, being sarcastic, or making a negative reference to something related to the reporter. But hold on - why not come up first with "rules of engagement" for myself before returning fire. So, here are some rules I've been thinking of when arguing with the criticizer:
1. Don't make fun of the reporter's family, their writing style, their religion, their personal history, the place where they live, their intelligence, their character, or whatever. Sarcasm can be one of the meanest forms of communication. (Though I think it may be appropriate in rare occasions. An historical instance that comes to mind is when Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27.)
2. Consider that the reporter's comments may have some truth to them. Take them for what they are worth and learn from them.
3. Some people are so chronically negative or extra nasty that they loose their credibility. It may be best just to avoid responding to those folks. For instance, I personally don't think I'd bother commenting on what Hugo Chavez has to say.
4. Perhaps focus on just one point to counter, instead of trying to shoot down all the incoming rounds.
5. Keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times during the ride and...
6. Have fun!