<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 16, 2007 11:53 AM, Leo Mauler <<a href="mailto:webgiant@yahoo.com">webgiant@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
--- James Sissel <<a href="mailto:jimsissel@yahoo.com">jimsissel@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Has this post gone on long enough to mention<br>> Nazis yet? ;)<br><br>Godwin's Law is merely an expression of the percentage
<br>chance of when Hitler will be mentioned in a long<br>argument (the length of the argument is directly<br>proportional to the percentage chance of Nazis/Hitler<br>being mentioned), and has nothing whatsoever to do<br>with when the argument ends and/or who won the
<br>argument.<br><br>However, in conventional usage, Godwin's Law<br>traditionally has a "he who smelt it dealt it"<br>approach to the "winner" of such an argument, in that<br>the person who mentions Nazis/Hitler first is declared
<br>completely wrong, regardless of the validity of<br>anything they have actually said. This of course<br>means that Socialized medicine is good for everyone,<br>and all the other government assistance programs are<br>good for us as well. ;-)
<br><div class="WgoR0d"><br></div></blockquote><div><br>Since you invoke the Godwin name let me introduce the Godwin to read deeper.<br><br><a href="http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Godwin.htm">http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Godwin.htm
</a><br><br>Would that our world reconsider HIS discourses as anodyne to what we suffer now.<br></div></div><br>