Re: Governor Schwarzenegger

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:09:09 GMT, in alt.astrology,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Bob Officer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:52:43 GMT, in alt.astrology, Kali
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> >Yeah, I appreciated his acting. I loved the terminator 
>> >films. But I had no idea what he was like off stage. 
>> 
>> Just remember a actor is nothing more than a professional liar. He
>> uses a script and his goal is to convince you he is someone or
>> something he is not. 
>> 
>> Do we really need to elect another figurehead actor reading scripted
>> replies to questions? Why elect a professional liar, when we can have
>> a piss poor liars we already have elected to office.
>> 
>> >:  Under pressure, this guy reverts to a Nazi.
>> >
>> >Godwin invoked. Thread over. 
>> 
>> Kali you have to understand  Arnold's father was a Nazi Party member
>> of chief of police in his town. He was raised in a strict household
>> and remember the apple doesn't fall from the tree.
>> 
>> It is possible to make a reference in the case to Nazi's and not have
>> Godwin invoked.
>> 
>Here's a statement of Godwin's Law:
>
>>Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows 
>>longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or 
>>Hitler approaches one.
>
>There's a lot I don't understand about this "Law", such as:
>
>1.  Who is Godwin?

The man that made the observation.
The corollary to godwin's law is also shown to be true by observation.

>2.  Why does Godwin get to write "Laws"?

The law is an observation...

Just as the disappearance of one kook from a groups always creates a vacuum
which is filled by another kook appearing. (I forget who actually made this
(stitch or Matt Kreible?)  observation but in the years reading and
watching alt.astrology, alt.paranormal, alt.fan.art-bell, sci.astro and
sci.skeptic, I have found it to be true.)


>3.  What is the signifcance of this "Law"?

It is observed to be a trvth. Sort of like the Law of Gravity.

>3.  Why am I supposed to care about Godwin-feathers and his "Law"?

Because it means the usefulness of the discussion is over. It has become
degenerate.


>3.  Why does the "invocation" of this "Law" put an end to a thread or
>have any other effect whatsoever?

General agreement of others. 
Anyone can continue if they so wish...


>4.  Kali and Ross have "invoked" this "Law" in short threads.  How does
>that fulfill the condition "As an online discussion grows longer, ..." 
>This condition means that if I *start* a thread with a mention of Nazis,
>it invalidates the "Law" off the top.

It indicates the usefulness of the discussion is over. 

>5.  Clearly Godwin has a thing about Nazis.  Why is it ethical, sane,
>human, or right to suppress the discussion of what interests you, by
>inventing a "Law" about it?  And why do ancient Usenet nerds make a
>profession of letting Godwin get away with this?

Because Godwin made a useful observation. No one is suppressing the
discussion. They are choosing not to participate any longer. There are ways
to discuss Hilter and Nazis without having Godwin invoked. 

There is a FAQ about Godwin's around usenet someplace. Check in
news.answers. DYOHW for once, please.


--
Bob Officer
"So in other words, you make your web page into a fantasy land where you get 
to have the last word. No wonder USENET's freedom disturbs you so much."
Matt Krieble's ,Usenet user's,(Dec,1999) reply to the net abuser BruDanKettler