"Joe" wrote in message
...

Who gives a crap who you were talking to?

You cannot argue the point, neither can the worm.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:37:06 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?


He's borderline.

Good Wilbur, you're really coming up with some viscious stuff here. Maybe
you should change characters again and see what kind of vile crap you can
spew using your remailing techniques.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:37:06 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?


I don't believe it does. My understanding is that Hitler must be
mentioned by name to invoke Godwin's law.
Mark E. Williams

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:52:03 -0600, Maynard G. Krebbs
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:37:06 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?


I don't believe it does. My understanding is that Hitler must be
mentioned by name to invoke Godwin's law.
Mark E. Williams

It's unfortunate that so few people are familar with (and observe) Mike Godwin's
convention, commonly referred to as "Godwin's Law." Briefly, Godwin's Law goes
like this:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs,
that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has
automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper
bound on thread length in those groups.

The first part is Godwin's Law, while the second part can be thought of as a
sort of "Godwin's Rule." (Jargon File)

Joe Parsons

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:17:04 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:37:06 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?


He's borderline.

Good Wilbur, you're really coming up with some viscious stuff here.
Maybe
you should change characters again and see what kind of vile crap you can
spew using your remailing techniques.


jps, I can say what I want to say in a straightforward way.

If you want to accuse me of something, please do, but don't do it in
your usual weasel style.

Be a man (I can wwait until your lessons are over).

Wilbur, my style is my style. You obviously have one too. I can't talk to
you like a frog just because that's only language you understand. I could
try vile but I'm resigned to the fact I just couldn't measure up to your
standards.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:33:23 -0800, "jps" wrote:

I could
try vile but I'm resigned to the fact I just couldn't measure up to your
standards.

jps, don't be a little weasel and accuse me of something you certainly
cannot support.

You've reached an all-time low, even for you.

Oh really, was it your son then? Son-of-worm?

On 10 Nov 2003 05:28:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Lurked through the boatered site a few minutes ago.

Some of the threads there are not that much different than here. Some guy put
up a question about licensing boaters, and there are no end of conservative
posts
slamming CT. and other states for being "under Clinton's big-government
influence" etc.

Less Hall, the moderator, chimed in to scold the poster suggesting that a
minimum education standard might be a good thing with a smart-ass remark along
the general line of, "with all the good stuff you have posted here, why would
you post this liberal rant?"

All the folks clamoring for a moderated group- go take a look see. All you wind
up with is a group that generally reflects the politics and prejudices of the
moderator.


This just buttresses the point I have made for self policing... via
ignoring inappropriate content. I would no more want George Bush
editing my postings than Bill Clinton.

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:52:03 -0600, Maynard G. Krebbs
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:37:06 GMT, "Joe" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
30s Germany?

Hey Wally, doesn't this statement invoke Godwin's Law?


I don't believe it does. My understanding is that Hitler must be
mentioned by name to invoke Godwin's law.
Mark E. Williams

It's unfortunate that so few people are familar with (and observe) Mike Godwin's
convention, commonly referred to as "Godwin's Law." Briefly, Godwin's Law goes
like this:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs,
that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has
automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper
bound on thread length in those groups.

The first part is Godwin's Law, while the second part can be thought of as a
sort of "Godwin's Rule." (Jargon File)

Joe Parsons


It's meaningless bullship.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Gene Kearns wrote:

On 10 Nov 2003 05:28:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Lurked through the boatered site a few minutes ago.

Some of the threads there are not that much different than here. Some guy put
up a question about licensing boaters, and there are no end of conservative
posts
slamming CT. and other states for being "under Clinton's big-government
influence" etc.

Less Hall, the moderator, chimed in to scold the poster suggesting that a
minimum education standard might be a good thing with a smart-ass remark along
the general line of, "with all the good stuff you have posted here, why would
you post this liberal rant?"

All the folks clamoring for a moderated group- go take a look see. All you wind
up with is a group that generally reflects the politics and prejudices of the
moderator.


This just buttresses the point I have made for self policing... via
ignoring inappropriate content. I would no more want George Bush
editing my postings than Bill Clinton.

Heck, Gene, at least Clinton would be able to *read* your scribblings here.

--
Email sent to is never read.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:45:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:

On 10 Nov 2003 05:28:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Lurked through the boatered site a few minutes ago.

Some of the threads there are not that much different than here. Some guy put
up a question about licensing boaters, and there are no end of conservative
posts
slamming CT. and other states for being "under Clinton's big-government
influence" etc.

Less Hall, the moderator, chimed in to scold the poster suggesting that a
minimum education standard might be a good thing with a smart-ass remark along
the general line of, "with all the good stuff you have posted here, why would
you post this liberal rant?"

All the folks clamoring for a moderated group- go take a look see. All you wind
up with is a group that generally reflects the politics and prejudices of the
moderator.


This just buttresses the point I have made for self policing... via
ignoring inappropriate content. I would no more want George Bush
editing my postings than Bill Clinton.

Heck, Gene, at least Clinton would be able to *read* your scribblings here.

Harry,

As I have said before, I don't think GW is either stupid nor a "nice
guy" and Clinton was a stupid prick (scholarship notwithstanding),
figuratively and literally.

Although I stood toe to toe with you, differing, over the last
election*, the present situation has me seeing your side.....
extremely liberal though it is...... more favorably than I have since
my college days. I find that somehow disturbing.

Anyhow..... maintain your composure..... ever remembering those people
here that get a lot of mileage by getting you "going."


==================================================
* All things considered..... I will conceded that although we have
vehemently disagreed on points in the past, you have always been a
gentleman in our debates.