Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

Sir! Sir! He broke Godwin's Law!
Stop him posting now!

Oh, and Hitler would have approved of this Nazi Netcop approach :-)))

Cheers

Dave R

On 16 Jan, 09:14, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with *the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

Sir! Sir! He broke Godwin's Law!
Stop him posting now!

Oh, and Hitler would have approved of this Nazi Netcop approach :-)))

Cheers

Dave R

Just as I was going to join in the discussion it was terminated :-(

John

On 16 Jan, 09:14, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with *the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

Sir! Sir! He broke Godwin's Law!
Stop him posting now!

Oh, and Hitler would have approved of this Nazi Netcop approach :-)))

I moderate a forum (yes, yes, I know, but we're handy in some
contexts) and you'd be surprised how often it happens.
That said, it's not a case of once someone's Godwin-ed it's bans and
deletions all round, more a case of any 'argument' has deteriorated to
the point of "you smell" and really isn't worth continuing.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

It's not a rule, merely some guy's observation (and as all internet observations
that I have observed :-) is probably based on a sample size of 1).
Further, this idea was floating around many, many years ago and never really
gained any traction - except possibly among meme spotters.

pete wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

It's not a rule, merely some guy's observation (and as all internet observations
that I have observed :-) is probably based on a sample size of 1).
Further, this idea was floating around many, many years ago and never really
gained any traction - except possibly among meme spotters.

Its fairly common in some NGs. 'Godwins Law' is widely quoted.

David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Godwin's Law? Well known on the net.

Note that it's "law" in the physics sense, not the legal one. I.e, "this
is something which has been observed to happen", not "you are not
allowed to do this". Nobody passed a statute to create the laws of
acceleration.

It's also meant to be humorous, not literally true.

Pete

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years will
(metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is lost!

Funnily enough, another term I haven't seen bandied around so much lately
is ****wit - not aimed at anyone in this thread - yet!



--
The Wanderer

The older I get the better I used to be!

A 2010 corollary here is "Don't mention the angle-grinder".

--
Reentrant

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:23:34 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y. I also
can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years
will (metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is
lost!

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article correcting a
spelling error...will themself make an error.

(and I bloody nearly let that go with 'spalling', which is after all a
word but not suitable in the above context)
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager wrote:


Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article correcting a
spelling error...will themself make an error.


Are we allowed to complain about your grammar? I'm sure "themself" is
not a wrod. ;-)

DaveyOz

Not to be confused with a Hitler **** :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:01:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
pete wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

It's not a rule, merely some guy's observation (and as all internet observations
that I have observed :-) is probably based on a sample size of 1).
Further, this idea was floating around many, many years ago and never really
gained any traction - except possibly among meme spotters.

Its fairly common in some NGs. 'Godwins Law' is widely quoted.

Yes, widely quoted (I saw QI, too). However "proof by assertion" only works for
beliefs like creationism and top or bottom posting, where there aren't
any facts to back up what the proponents hold to be true. As a consequence
they presume that the louder they shout it, the more people will believe it -
or that they'll manage to persuade themselves ...

Dave Osborne wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:


Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article
correcting a spelling error...will themself make an error.


Are we allowed to complain about your grammar? I'm sure "themself" is
not a wrod. ;-)

DaveyOz

In deed. Themselves or their self?

Why 'them' persists rather the their selves I do not know.

On 16/01/2010 13:40, pete wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:01:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
pete wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

It's not a rule, merely some guy's observation (and as all internet observations
that I have observed :-) is probably based on a sample size of 1).
Further, this idea was floating around many, many years ago and never really
gained any traction - except possibly among meme spotters.

Its fairly common in some NGs. 'Godwins Law' is widely quoted.

Yes, widely quoted (I saw QI, too). However "proof by assertion" only works for
beliefs like creationism and top or bottom posting, where there aren't
any facts to back up what the proponents hold to be true. As a consequence
they presume that the louder they shout it, the more people will believe it -
or that they'll manage to persuade themselves ...

Is that what Hitler did? ;-)

--
Howard Neil

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Osborne wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:


Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article
correcting a spelling error...will themself make an error.


Are we allowed to complain about your grammar? I'm sure "themself" is
not a wrod. ;-)

In deed. Themselves or their self?

Why 'them' persists rather the their selves I do not know.

themself is in both My Collins and Concise Oxford dictionaries. The
example the later gives is "anyone can hurt themself".

On 16/01/2010 12:23, The Wanderer wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years will
(metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is lost!

Funnily enough, another term I haven't seen bandied around so much lately
is ****wit - not aimed at anyone in this thread - yet!

Isn't this a politer group, generally speaking? After all, you call
someone a ****wit and then it later turns out he's the resident expert
in the extraction of energy from moonbeams or whatever is exercising you
at the later moment.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

pete wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:01:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
pete wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?
It's not a rule, merely some guy's observation (and as all internet observations
that I have observed :-) is probably based on a sample size of 1).
Further, this idea was floating around many, many years ago and never really
gained any traction - except possibly among meme spotters.
Its fairly common in some NGs. 'Godwins Law' is widely quoted.

Yes, widely quoted (I saw QI, too). However "proof by assertion" only works for
beliefs like creationism and top or bottom posting, where there aren't
any facts to back up what the proponents hold to be true. As a consequence
they presume that the louder they shout it, the more people will believe it -
or that they'll manage to persuade themselves ...

It's the basic principle behind marketing you know.


No one is easier to trick than someone who thinks they are smarter than
they are.

In message , Pete Verdon
d writes
David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:
(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to
draw a comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi
Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost
the argument.
I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.
Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Godwin's Law? Well known on the net.

Note that it's "law" in the physics sense, not the legal one. I.e,
"this is something which has been observed to happen", not "you are not
allowed to do this". Nobody passed a statute to create the laws of
acceleration.

It's also meant to be humorous, not literally true.

There's another "law" the name of which escapes me ATM, which states
that anyone who corrects another poster's grammar or typo, will
themselves make an error in the correction


--
geoff

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:23:34 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y. I also
can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years
will (metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is
lost!

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article correcting a
spelling error...will themself make an error.

(and I bloody nearly let that go with 'spalling', which is after all a
word but not suitable in the above context)

Bugger - I just posted the exact same post 5 minutes ago before reading
yours


--
geoff

In message , Dave Osborne
writes
Bob Eager wrote:

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article
correcting a spelling error...will themself make an error.


Are we allowed to complain about your grammar? I'm sure "themself" is
not a wrod. ;-)


Of cour sit is

--
geoff

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:16:38 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

On 16/01/2010 12:23, The Wanderer wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years will
(metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is lost!

Funnily enough, another term I haven't seen bandied around so much lately
is ****wit - not aimed at anyone in this thread - yet!

Isn't this a politer group,

No, it's usenet!


--
The Wanderer

Wine Improves with age. The older I get the better it tastes!

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
Not to be confused with a Hitler **** :-)


Pee Heil


--
geoff

On 16 Jan, 09:14, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with *the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered existence
here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

Sir! Sir! He broke Godwin's Law!
Stop him posting now!

Oh, and Hitler would have approved of this Nazi Netcop approach :-)))

Cheers

Dave R

I'd say it hasn't turned up here (yet!) as there's no motivation for
American style, trailer-trash illiterates, to have any DIY input.
Times-are-a-changing though. If 'baby-puppy-moron-retard' etc turns up
here on more than the odd occasion, then we know our UK culture is
sunk.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:37:49 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Pete Verdon
d writes
David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:
(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to
draw a comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi
Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost
the argument.
I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.
Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Godwin's Law? Well known on the net.

Note that it's "law" in the physics sense, not the legal one. I.e, "this
is something which has been observed to happen", not "you are not
allowed to do this". Nobody passed a statute to create the laws of
acceleration.

It's also meant to be humorous, not literally true.

There's another "law" the name of which escapes me ATM, which states
that anyone who corrects another poster's grammar or typo, will
themselves make an error in the correction

Oi! I said that...!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:39:11 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:23:34 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw
a comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi
Germany (2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have
lost the argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y. I also
can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years
will (metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is
lost!

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article correcting
a spelling error...will themself make an error.

(and I bloody nearly let that go with 'spalling', which is after all a
word but not suitable in the above context)

Bugger - I just posted the exact same post 5 minutes ago before reading
yours

And I read this just after answering yours!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

geoff
wibbled on Saturday 16 January 2010 15:37


There's another "law" the name of which escapes me ATM, which states
that anyone who corrects another poster's grammar or typo, will
themselves make an error in the correction

And if they don't make an error, someone will refer to them as a
Grammar-Nazi.

--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:41:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Osborne wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:


Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article
correcting a spelling error...will themself make an error.


Are we allowed to complain about your grammar? I'm sure "themself" is
not a wrod. ;-)

DaveyOz

In deed. Themselves or their self?

Why 'them' persists rather the their selves I do not know.

If it's 'anyone' it's neither of the above. Spurious pronouns alert!
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:41:55 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
Not to be confused with a Hitler **** :-)


Pee Heil

That's when it freezes before landing.
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:39:11 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:23:34 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y. I also
can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years
will (metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is
lost!

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article correcting a
spelling error...will themself make an error.

(and I bloody nearly let that go with 'spalling', which is after all a
word but not suitable in the above context)

Bugger - I just posted the exact same post 5 minutes ago before reading
yours

Hmm, there should be scope for another aphorism there!


--
The Wanderer

Statistics show that statistics can't be trusted.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany

Its fairly common in some NGs. 'Godwins Law' is widely quoted.

And in 50 years time, it'll be mentioning Global Warming (from
whatever perspective). Now, I'm sure we were having a polite
disagreement about Gun control just a moment ago ...

#Paul

In message , The Wanderer
writes
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:39:11 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:23:34 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y. I also
can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years
will (metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is
lost!

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article correcting a
spelling error...will themself make an error.

(and I bloody nearly let that go with 'spalling', which is after all a
word but not suitable in the above context)

Bugger - I just posted the exact same post 5 minutes ago before reading
yours

Hmm, there should be scope for another aphorism there!


Great minds ...

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Wanderer
writes
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:39:11 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:23:34 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to draw
a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi
Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost
the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y. I also
can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years
will (metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is
lost!

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article correcting
a
spelling error...will themself make an error.

(and I bloody nearly let that go with 'spalling', which is after all a
word but not suitable in the above context)

Bugger - I just posted the exact same post 5 minutes ago before reading
yours

Hmm, there should be scope for another aphorism there!


Great minds ...

Fools seldom....

Howard Neil wrote:

On 16/01/2010 13:40, pete wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:01:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
pete wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to
draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y.
I also can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence
here?

It's not a rule, merely some guy's observation (and as all internet
observations
that I have observed :-) is probably based on a sample size of 1).
Further, this idea was floating around many, many years ago and
never really
gained any traction - except possibly among meme spotters.

Its fairly common in some NGs. 'Godwins Law' is widely quoted.

Yes, widely quoted (I saw QI, too). However "proof by assertion" only
works for
beliefs like creationism and top or bottom posting, where there aren't
any facts to back up what the proponents hold to be true. As a
consequence
they presume that the louder they shout it, the more people will
believe it -
or that they'll manage to persuade themselves ...

Is that what Hitler did? ;-)

Not quite.

All of this stuff is extremely logical, because it bases its appeal on a
fundamental change of principle, preferably allied to deeper and baser
human emotion.

Nazism is perfectly rational and logical, if you accept the core
principle, that humans beings differ racially one from another (broadly
true) and that only one race (Aryan) is fit to rule (arguable) and that
other races are ipso facto mere vermin (very debatable) to be ethnically
cleansed with the human equivalent of rat poison. Since they are
subhuman, compassion is not relevant.


The same techniques are currently employed by the Labour party, to
protect their position. The Common Man is good, any one else is an
elitist Enemy Of The People. Except the labour party of course, who make
a bloody fortune, are completely elitist, but are Friends Of The People.
I have never understood how people buy into that one.


The key purpose of marketing is to embed these preconceptions at a
subliminal level, so that 'political correctness;' is not even a subject
for discussion. It's simply 'accepted fact'.

I often wonder how boys got laid 'Before Lynx'.

Anyway, once you have the principle of e.g. climate change and green
issues firmly embedded, it can then become an excuse for any kind of
nonsense, just as the 'global war on terrorism;' 'swine flue pandemic' -
both originally useful ideas - become the new political correctness,
and the excuse for people to get into power and bolster their positions
and their wallets by trading on this aspect of public perception.

The fact of the matter is that humans' minds have to make a lot more
judgements at every second, than the conscious minds can cope with. The
caveman whio ponders, 'That looks like a snarly hungry thing with big
teeth. Its a saber tooth tiger. I wonder if its actually a nice sabre
tooth tiger or'.. *splat*' doesn't get to survive. The man who says ****
****, saber tooth, throw rock and climb tree' does. Even if it tiurns
out to be an oversized pussy cat.

The key to marketing, is to tap into the innate mechanism we all have
that makes snap judgements, that is, and has to be for sound reasons,
innately prejudiced, and bend it to your purpose.

Viz the recent labour attacks of 'toffs' and privilege that appeals
directly to peoples self importance, greed and envy. Characteristcs that
every single soap opera and every single left wing politico on the telly
tells them is not only the only possible human state, but laudably so as
well.

Or the lynx adverts, that imply that the natural virgin teenage
mentality of being extremely unsure of how attractive they are to the
opposite (or same?) sex, can be changed by the application of poof
potions that make them smell likes a tarts boudoir, but heck, if
everyone's doing it, you probably won't notice.

Then it gets worse. Noticing this, some people then start things like
'Scientology' and 'Neuro linguistic Programming' to get you to see
through it all, and, guess what., these become a new and different sort
of totally intolerant prejudice in their own right.

The sad fact is that 90% of the population, and 99% of the young, are
simply cannon fodder in the battle of ideas that purport to 'tell it
like it is' depending on how convincing and alluring those ideas are,
that means that most of the population is ALWAYS under some form of mind
control.

Of which the very best form is that which forms the general base of
'common sense' 'what everyone knows, stoopid' that is NEVER questioned
at all.

I remarked to the gentleman who runs the village shop that we should get
rid of ALL the bloody politicians and just run things ourselves 'but we
have to have them don't we?' 'Why?' I asked. It had simply never
occurred to him to question what, in fact, we needed government FOR.

I se today Our Glorious Leader has done the classic marketing trick of
stepping smartly off the negative 'we hate toffs, tax the toffs' and
about faced to 'aspiration and social mobility means bigger houses,
bigger cars, and more foreign holidays for the middle class'

Sorry Gordon? wasn't it you that introduced swingeing taxes on biger
houses, bigger cars and foreign holidays?

Ho hum. Never mind. the facts are irrelevant. What counts is setting the
most irrelevant agenda possible, and challenging your opponents to waste
their time arguing it.

The most important way to make sure what you want to do, like start a
war in Iraq, is never questioned, is to keep it off the agenda altogether.


the simplest way to excuse yourself from teh consequences of your
actions, is to claim that yiou 'sincerely believed it to be the rigt
thing to do'

Like I go up and knife Brown in the back, and claim that 'God Told me
that he was the antichrist, I sincerely believed it was the right ting
to do'

And the appalling thing is, someone somewhere would buy into it, and the
worst I would get would be a few years in a mental hospital
Sadly Tony Bliar wont even get that.

Tim Streater wrote:
On 16/01/2010 12:23, The Wanderer wrote:
you call
someone a ****wit and then it later turns out he's the resident expert
in the extraction of energy from moonbeams

In which case, the appellation is fully justified IMHO ;-)

On 16/01/2010 09:14, David WE Roberts wrote:
Watching QI last night


How dare you post about QI before the QI XL version has been shown
(tonight, 23:15). :-)

--
Rod

In message , David WE Roberts
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Wanderer
writes
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:39:11 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:23:34 +0000, The Wanderer wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:14:36 -0000, David WE Roberts wrote:

Watching QI last night and they were quoting some 'law' which states
something like:

(1) The longer a discussion thread the more likely someone is to
draw a
comparison with the contents of a post and Hitler and/or Nazi
Germany
(2) At which point the person doing (1) is considered to have
lost the
argument.

I must say that I havevn't so far noticed this on uk.d-i-y. I also
can't see why rule (1) would stop any argument.

Was some researcher having a laugh, or are we leading a sheltered
existence here?

Ah - Google is my (only?) friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bizzarre - I didn't know there were any rules in Usenet!

There aren't, but those who have been posting to usenet for many years
will (metaphorically) nod sagely and agree that that the argument is
lost!

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article
correcting a
spelling error...will themself make an error.

(and I bloody nearly let that go with 'spalling', which is after all a
word but not suitable in the above context)

Bugger - I just posted the exact same post 5 minutes ago before reading
yours

Hmm, there should be scope for another aphorism there!


Great minds ...

Fools seldom....

As they say ...

--
geoff

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:09:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I often wonder how boys got laid 'Before Lynx'.

Mosaic

Jules wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:09:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I often wonder how boys got laid 'Before Lynx'.

Mosaic


Tres drole ;-(

Bob Eager wrote:

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article correcting a
spelling error...will themself make an error.


That's Muphry's law. And I did type that correctly.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

Another observed rule being that anyone who posts an article
correcting a spelling error...will themself make an error.


That's Muphry's law. And I did type that correctly.



From Wikipedia


Skitt's law - A corollary of Muphry's law, variously expressed as, "Any post
correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself,"
or, "The likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the
embarrassment it will cause the poster."



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk