Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ
0 views
Skip to first unread message
b o z o
Feb 1, 2013, 1:59:28 PM2/1/13
to
On Feb 1, 12:04 am, tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote:
> Archive-name: usenet/legends/godwin
> Posting-Frequency: monthly
> Last-Modified: October 7, 2003
> Version: 1.15
> URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin
> Maintainer: tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>
> Godwin's Law FAQ
> -or-
> "How to post about Nazis and get away with it"
>
> One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention
> Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion
> you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a
> long and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely wrong. This FAQ
> is an attempt to set straight as much of the history and meaning of Godwin's
> Law as possible, and hopefully encourage users to invoke it a bit more
> sparingly. Of course, knowing Usenet, it won't do an ounce of good...
>
> [Standard Disclaimers: this document assumes you have some basic knowledge
> of Usenet; if you don't, go check out news.announce.newusers for a while to
> gain said knowledge. Misuse of the information contained within this FAQ
> is not the responsibility of the author (though he's pretty confused exactly
> how you could misuse this information). Copyright 1999-2002, Tim Skirvin,
> all rights reserved, <FISH><, fnord, furrfu.]
>
> I. The Basics
> 1. What is Godwin's Law?
>
> Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
> (god...@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
> the Jargon File:
>
> As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
> involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
>
> 2. What does it mean?
>
> It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
> goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
> approach one.
>
> 3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
>
> Aah, now *there's* the real question.
>
> In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
> years or so, the Nazis were a German political party led by Adolf Hitler
> that slaughtered upwards of ten million people that didn't meet their
> standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world
> in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of
> people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
> them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
>
> As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
> more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
> insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
> notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
> the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
> Nazi comparison.
>
> 4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
>
> The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
> thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
> mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
> become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
>
> So, what this means in practical terms:
>
> o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
> wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
> insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
> o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
> was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
> the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
> o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
> going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
> a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
> other side.
>
> 5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?
>
> Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
> something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
> happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
> flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
> is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
>
> II. What does it mean?
> 1. Didn't we already spend the last section talking about this?
>
> Well, yeah, but people don't seem to get the point...
>
> 2. What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
>
> Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that
> your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion.
> Them's the breaks.
>
> That isn't to say, of course, that you can't talk about Nazis and
> such on Usenet - this *is* Usenet, after all, where virtually every
> conversation that goes on is fairly ludicrous in the first place. It's
> just going to take you a lot more effort to find real information out of
> there and to avoid getting yourself off on side-threads - which you'll
> eventually do regardless, but you can try to put it off.
>
> This also applies if a thread mutates into an actual discussion of
> Nazis, of course.
>
> 3. What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?
>
> Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting
> Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate. Still, trying
> to invoke Godwin's Law near a Neo-Nazi isn't really a good idea because
> it's not terribly original and they'll probably get off on it anyway.
> Just ignore them and occasionally publish a FAQ detailing what actually
> happened during the Holocaust and such; arguing probably isn't going to
> help you.
>
> 4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?
>
> In the proper kind of flamewar, Godwin's Law can be used as a
> gambit - how can you force your opponent to invoke the Law? Actually
> teaching these skills is tough, of course, and is best done through
> experience. Experience with chess and alt.flame are recommended.
>
> 5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
>
> The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
> and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
> because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
> don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
> an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
> I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
> post is unnecessary.
>
> 6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
>
> Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
> thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
> virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
> the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (qu...@swcp.com):
>
> Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
> "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
>
> Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
>
> 7. Does Godwin's Law apply in the real world?
>
> Actually, yeah, but usually discussions in Real Life end by
> somebody wandering off in disgust before it can be invoked.
>
> 8. Are there any topics that lead directly to Godwin Invocations?
>
> Well, yeah. Of course. Case's Corollary to the Law states "if
> the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi
> comparison being made becomes equal to one" - but that's just an old list.
> Abortion and gun control debates always lead to Nazi comparisons; talk
> with a Libertarian for more than a few hours and he'll almost certainly
> bring up Nazis; book-burning is pretty much considered a sub-topic of
> Nazism at this point. Hell, talk about anything politically related and
> you'll eventually get there.
>
> If you're really bored, a fun game to play is Six Degrees of Godwin.
> Take a topic - any topic - and see how quickly you can relate it to Nazis
> using legitimate topic drift methods. For example: a discussion about
> computers will eventually lead to discussions of keyboards and which are
> best, followed by a lot of complaining about the Windows key on 104-key
> keyboards, leading to complaints about Microsoft, forcing the standard
> MS-vs-government flamewar that I'm sure you're all aware of, leading to
> attacks on Microsoft's "fascist" tactics by one side or another, which
> will force the other side to start talking about the differences between
> fascism, capitalism, and, of course, Nazism! The fun never stops!
>
> Appendix A: The Many Forms of Godwin's Law
>
> "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the
> participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."
> - Richard Sexton (http://www.vrx.net/richard/) stating what would later
> be known as Godwin's Law, Message-ID <21...@gryphon.COM>, 16 Oct 1989
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21000%40gryphon.COM&output=gplain
>
> "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
> - Mike Godwin, first article about the topic in the Google archives,
> Message-ID <1991Aug18.215029.19...@eff.org>, 18 Aug 1991
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug18.215029.19421%40eff.org
>
> :Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "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 Jargon File (http://www.ccil.org/jargon/)
>
> Hitler, Nazis, nazis, and net.cops:
> Warning: now that this FAQ has mentioned Hitler and Nazis, UseNet Rule #4
> (also known as Godwin's Rule, after Mike Godwin of the EFF, sci.crypt, and
> comp.org.eff.talk, a sometime foe of David Sternlight (q.v.) [even though it
> was apparently in use, by Richard Sexton {q.v.} among others, before Mike's
> 1988 (?) net.advent; the "Godwin's" part seems to stem from "Rich Rosen's
> Rules of Net.Debate, which I don't have a copy of]) says it will be coming to
> an irrelevant and off-topic end soon. Just as there will always be newbies
> ("It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the net" - response to a 1993 wave
> of delphi.com postings on a.f.u), there will always be people who see the net
> and are repulsed because there's stuff there they don't want to see - so they
> set out to make sure noone else can, either. They invariably fail, because
> there are no net.cops to enforce any such rules on UseNet; in the course of
> the heated flamewar that usually follows, things escalate until either Hitler
> or Nazis (or both) put in an appearance, at which point the thread has
> officially lost all relevance. People scream at each other a bit more, then
> give up and go home. Bleah. "Keep your brains up top; don't be a net.cop."
> This has mutated, in true UseNet fashion, to encompass *any* continuing
> thread; if you mention Hitler or Nazis out of the blue, the thread is sure to
> die irrelevantly soon (and, incidentally, you've lost the argument, whatever
> it was)... and every continuing thread on UseNet *must* contain such a
> reference sooner or later. Invoking Rule #4 deliberately in hopes of ending
> a thread, however, is doomed to failure (Quirk's Exception)...
>
> UseNet Rules #n:
> No firm info at the present time is available on just what the other UseNet
> Rules #n are. However, at a guess, they include:
> --
> Rule #nonumber: There are no hard-and-fast Rules on UseNet, only Guidelines,
> which are more or less strictly enforced (and differ) from group to group;
> this is why it's generally wise to read any group for a bit before ever
> posting to it.
> Rule #0: *There* *is* *no* *C*b*l*. There *is*, however, a net-wide
> conspiracy designed solely to lead Dave Hayes (q.v.) to believe that there
> is a C*b*l.
> Corollary: *There* *are* *no* *pods*.
> Rule #9: It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.
> Dave Fischer's Extension: 1993 was The Year September Never Ended [so far,
> there doesn't seem to be much evidence he's wrong...]
> Rule #17: Go not to UseNet for counsel, for they will say both `No' and
> `Yes' and `Try another newsgroup'.
> Rule #2 (John Gilmore): "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes
> around it."
> Rule #108 (from the soc.motss FAQ): "What will happen to me if I read
> soc.motss?" "In general, nothing. (You may be informed or infuriated, of
> course; but that's a standard Usenet hazard.)"
> Rule #666: Old alt groups never die. They don't fade away nicely, either.
> Rule #7-B: There is no topic so thoroughly covered that noone will ever
> bring it up again.
> Rule #90120: Applying your standards to someone else's post *will* result
> in a flamewar.
> Rule #1: Spellling and grammer counts. So do grace, wit, and a sense of
> humor (the latter two are different), as well as a willingness to meet
> odd people, but these are lesser considerations.
> Rule #x^2: FAQs are asked frequently. Get used to them.
> Rule #29: no rational discourse can happen in a thread cross-posted to
> more than two newsgroups.
> rule #6 (Eddie Saxe): don't post to misc.test unless you understand the
> consequences.
> Rule #547 (Arne Adolfsen): When people know they're wrong they resort to ad
> hominems.
> Rule #37 (Faisal Nameer Jawdat): Read the thread from the beginning, or else.
> Rule #5 (Reimer's Reason): Nobody ever ignores what they should ignore on
> Usenet.
> Rule $19.99 (Brad `Squid' Shapcott): The Internet *isn't* *free*. It just has
> an economy that makes no sense to capitalism.
> Rule #3 ("Why 3?" "Because we felt like it"): For every opinion there is at
> least one equally loud and opposing opinion; sometimes stated as:
> Rule #27 (Gary Lewandowski): "In cyberspace, *everyone* can hear you scream."
> And for completeness' sake:
>
> Rule #4: (Godwin's Rule) Any off-topic mention of Hitler or Nazis will cause
> the thread it is mentioned in to an irrelevant and off-topic end very soon;
> every thread on UseNet has a constantly-increasing probability to contain
> such a mention.
> Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is
> ineffectual.
> Case's Corollary: If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the
> probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.
> - net.legends FAQ (http://wiki.killfile.org/mirror/net.legends)
>
> Appendix B: Addendums, Commentary, and Miscellaneous
>
> 1. Bentsen's Defense
>
> For some, there is another way around Godwin's Law:
>
> "Not this time. I know Mike Godwin. Mike Godwin is a friend of mine.
> Senator, you're no Mike Godwin."
>
> This, of course, only applies to friends of Mike Godwin. The
> originator of this rule, Earl Cooley III (sh...@io.com), is one of those
> people. If you have to ask, you don't apply. I don't apply, so don't
> feel bad.
>
> Note that this was named after Senator Lloyd Bentsen's "You're
> no Jack Kennedy" line from the 1988 vice-presidential debates. And the
> original usage can be found in <3b09d2e6.79411...@news.supernews.com>:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3b09d2e6.79411...@news.supernews.com
>
> 2. Godwin's Commentary
>
> Godwin actually wrote a short article for Wired Magazine on the
> Law back in 1994:
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
>
> The article is actually more about the power and danger of memes
> (thought-viruses) than about Godwin's Law itself, but it's worthwhile
> reading for anybody who actually got this far into the FAQ.
>
> 3. Author's Note on the Holocaust
>
> Over the years, I have received several emails regarding this FAQ
> regarding the Holocaust itself, either disputing the holocaust or the
> numbers listed in this FAQ. I'd just like to make it clear that I don't
> have any particular desire to debate these points; this FAQ is meant to
> point out and explain a quirk of human nature, not to codify the history
> of World War II.
>
> 4. Additional Corollaries
>
> There have been many additional corollaries and otherwise related
> rules created since the net.legends FAQ codified them, and/or missed in
> that FAQ. Those that have been brought to the author's attention:
>
> Stead's Law (named for Lew Stead of alt.pagan fame):
> Any discussion between more than 2 Pagans will eventually come around
> to Christianity.
> - Reported by Donal Brewich <do...@brewich.com>
> - More information regarding its history would be appreciated
>
> --
> Copyright 1999-2003, Tim Skirvinhttp://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin
what are you try'n to say .... are you making fun of me ... you're an
antisemitic jew hater ... i betcha hate black clowns too
> Archive-name: usenet/legends/godwin
> Posting-Frequency: monthly
> Last-Modified: October 7, 2003
> Version: 1.15
> URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin
> Maintainer: tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>
> Godwin's Law FAQ
> -or-
> "How to post about Nazis and get away with it"
>
> One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention
> Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion
> you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a
> long and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely wrong. This FAQ
> is an attempt to set straight as much of the history and meaning of Godwin's
> Law as possible, and hopefully encourage users to invoke it a bit more
> sparingly. Of course, knowing Usenet, it won't do an ounce of good...
>
> [Standard Disclaimers: this document assumes you have some basic knowledge
> of Usenet; if you don't, go check out news.announce.newusers for a while to
> gain said knowledge. Misuse of the information contained within this FAQ
> is not the responsibility of the author (though he's pretty confused exactly
> how you could misuse this information). Copyright 1999-2002, Tim Skirvin,
> all rights reserved, <FISH><, fnord, furrfu.]
>
> I. The Basics
> 1. What is Godwin's Law?
>
> Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
> (god...@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
> the Jargon File:
>
> As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
> involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
>
> 2. What does it mean?
>
> It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
> goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
> approach one.
>
> 3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
>
> Aah, now *there's* the real question.
>
> In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
> years or so, the Nazis were a German political party led by Adolf Hitler
> that slaughtered upwards of ten million people that didn't meet their
> standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world
> in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of
> people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
> them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
>
> As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
> more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
> insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
> notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
> the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
> Nazi comparison.
>
> 4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
>
> The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
> thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
> mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
> become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
>
> So, what this means in practical terms:
>
> o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
> wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
> insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
> o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
> was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
> the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
> o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
> going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
> a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
> other side.
>
> 5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?
>
> Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
> something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
> happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
> flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
> is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
>
> II. What does it mean?
> 1. Didn't we already spend the last section talking about this?
>
> Well, yeah, but people don't seem to get the point...
>
> 2. What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
>
> Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that
> your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion.
> Them's the breaks.
>
> That isn't to say, of course, that you can't talk about Nazis and
> such on Usenet - this *is* Usenet, after all, where virtually every
> conversation that goes on is fairly ludicrous in the first place. It's
> just going to take you a lot more effort to find real information out of
> there and to avoid getting yourself off on side-threads - which you'll
> eventually do regardless, but you can try to put it off.
>
> This also applies if a thread mutates into an actual discussion of
> Nazis, of course.
>
> 3. What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?
>
> Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting
> Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate. Still, trying
> to invoke Godwin's Law near a Neo-Nazi isn't really a good idea because
> it's not terribly original and they'll probably get off on it anyway.
> Just ignore them and occasionally publish a FAQ detailing what actually
> happened during the Holocaust and such; arguing probably isn't going to
> help you.
>
> 4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?
>
> In the proper kind of flamewar, Godwin's Law can be used as a
> gambit - how can you force your opponent to invoke the Law? Actually
> teaching these skills is tough, of course, and is best done through
> experience. Experience with chess and alt.flame are recommended.
>
> 5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
>
> The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
> and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
> because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
> don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
> an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
> I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
> post is unnecessary.
>
> 6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
>
> Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
> thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
> virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
> the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (qu...@swcp.com):
>
> Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
> "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
>
> Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
>
> 7. Does Godwin's Law apply in the real world?
>
> Actually, yeah, but usually discussions in Real Life end by
> somebody wandering off in disgust before it can be invoked.
>
> 8. Are there any topics that lead directly to Godwin Invocations?
>
> Well, yeah. Of course. Case's Corollary to the Law states "if
> the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi
> comparison being made becomes equal to one" - but that's just an old list.
> Abortion and gun control debates always lead to Nazi comparisons; talk
> with a Libertarian for more than a few hours and he'll almost certainly
> bring up Nazis; book-burning is pretty much considered a sub-topic of
> Nazism at this point. Hell, talk about anything politically related and
> you'll eventually get there.
>
> If you're really bored, a fun game to play is Six Degrees of Godwin.
> Take a topic - any topic - and see how quickly you can relate it to Nazis
> using legitimate topic drift methods. For example: a discussion about
> computers will eventually lead to discussions of keyboards and which are
> best, followed by a lot of complaining about the Windows key on 104-key
> keyboards, leading to complaints about Microsoft, forcing the standard
> MS-vs-government flamewar that I'm sure you're all aware of, leading to
> attacks on Microsoft's "fascist" tactics by one side or another, which
> will force the other side to start talking about the differences between
> fascism, capitalism, and, of course, Nazism! The fun never stops!
>
> Appendix A: The Many Forms of Godwin's Law
>
> "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the
> participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."
> - Richard Sexton (http://www.vrx.net/richard/) stating what would later
> be known as Godwin's Law, Message-ID <21...@gryphon.COM>, 16 Oct 1989
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21000%40gryphon.COM&output=gplain
>
> "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
> - Mike Godwin, first article about the topic in the Google archives,
> Message-ID <1991Aug18.215029.19...@eff.org>, 18 Aug 1991
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug18.215029.19421%40eff.org
>
> :Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "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 Jargon File (http://www.ccil.org/jargon/)
>
> Hitler, Nazis, nazis, and net.cops:
> Warning: now that this FAQ has mentioned Hitler and Nazis, UseNet Rule #4
> (also known as Godwin's Rule, after Mike Godwin of the EFF, sci.crypt, and
> comp.org.eff.talk, a sometime foe of David Sternlight (q.v.) [even though it
> was apparently in use, by Richard Sexton {q.v.} among others, before Mike's
> 1988 (?) net.advent; the "Godwin's" part seems to stem from "Rich Rosen's
> Rules of Net.Debate, which I don't have a copy of]) says it will be coming to
> an irrelevant and off-topic end soon. Just as there will always be newbies
> ("It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the net" - response to a 1993 wave
> of delphi.com postings on a.f.u), there will always be people who see the net
> and are repulsed because there's stuff there they don't want to see - so they
> set out to make sure noone else can, either. They invariably fail, because
> there are no net.cops to enforce any such rules on UseNet; in the course of
> the heated flamewar that usually follows, things escalate until either Hitler
> or Nazis (or both) put in an appearance, at which point the thread has
> officially lost all relevance. People scream at each other a bit more, then
> give up and go home. Bleah. "Keep your brains up top; don't be a net.cop."
> This has mutated, in true UseNet fashion, to encompass *any* continuing
> thread; if you mention Hitler or Nazis out of the blue, the thread is sure to
> die irrelevantly soon (and, incidentally, you've lost the argument, whatever
> it was)... and every continuing thread on UseNet *must* contain such a
> reference sooner or later. Invoking Rule #4 deliberately in hopes of ending
> a thread, however, is doomed to failure (Quirk's Exception)...
>
> UseNet Rules #n:
> No firm info at the present time is available on just what the other UseNet
> Rules #n are. However, at a guess, they include:
> --
> Rule #nonumber: There are no hard-and-fast Rules on UseNet, only Guidelines,
> which are more or less strictly enforced (and differ) from group to group;
> this is why it's generally wise to read any group for a bit before ever
> posting to it.
> Rule #0: *There* *is* *no* *C*b*l*. There *is*, however, a net-wide
> conspiracy designed solely to lead Dave Hayes (q.v.) to believe that there
> is a C*b*l.
> Corollary: *There* *are* *no* *pods*.
> Rule #9: It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.
> Dave Fischer's Extension: 1993 was The Year September Never Ended [so far,
> there doesn't seem to be much evidence he's wrong...]
> Rule #17: Go not to UseNet for counsel, for they will say both `No' and
> `Yes' and `Try another newsgroup'.
> Rule #2 (John Gilmore): "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes
> around it."
> Rule #108 (from the soc.motss FAQ): "What will happen to me if I read
> soc.motss?" "In general, nothing. (You may be informed or infuriated, of
> course; but that's a standard Usenet hazard.)"
> Rule #666: Old alt groups never die. They don't fade away nicely, either.
> Rule #7-B: There is no topic so thoroughly covered that noone will ever
> bring it up again.
> Rule #90120: Applying your standards to someone else's post *will* result
> in a flamewar.
> Rule #1: Spellling and grammer counts. So do grace, wit, and a sense of
> humor (the latter two are different), as well as a willingness to meet
> odd people, but these are lesser considerations.
> Rule #x^2: FAQs are asked frequently. Get used to them.
> Rule #29: no rational discourse can happen in a thread cross-posted to
> more than two newsgroups.
> rule #6 (Eddie Saxe): don't post to misc.test unless you understand the
> consequences.
> Rule #547 (Arne Adolfsen): When people know they're wrong they resort to ad
> hominems.
> Rule #37 (Faisal Nameer Jawdat): Read the thread from the beginning, or else.
> Rule #5 (Reimer's Reason): Nobody ever ignores what they should ignore on
> Usenet.
> Rule $19.99 (Brad `Squid' Shapcott): The Internet *isn't* *free*. It just has
> an economy that makes no sense to capitalism.
> Rule #3 ("Why 3?" "Because we felt like it"): For every opinion there is at
> least one equally loud and opposing opinion; sometimes stated as:
> Rule #27 (Gary Lewandowski): "In cyberspace, *everyone* can hear you scream."
> And for completeness' sake:
>
> Rule #4: (Godwin's Rule) Any off-topic mention of Hitler or Nazis will cause
> the thread it is mentioned in to an irrelevant and off-topic end very soon;
> every thread on UseNet has a constantly-increasing probability to contain
> such a mention.
> Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is
> ineffectual.
> Case's Corollary: If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the
> probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.
> - net.legends FAQ (http://wiki.killfile.org/mirror/net.legends)
>
> Appendix B: Addendums, Commentary, and Miscellaneous
>
> 1. Bentsen's Defense
>
> For some, there is another way around Godwin's Law:
>
> "Not this time. I know Mike Godwin. Mike Godwin is a friend of mine.
> Senator, you're no Mike Godwin."
>
> This, of course, only applies to friends of Mike Godwin. The
> originator of this rule, Earl Cooley III (sh...@io.com), is one of those
> people. If you have to ask, you don't apply. I don't apply, so don't
> feel bad.
>
> Note that this was named after Senator Lloyd Bentsen's "You're
> no Jack Kennedy" line from the 1988 vice-presidential debates. And the
> original usage can be found in <3b09d2e6.79411...@news.supernews.com>:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3b09d2e6.79411...@news.supernews.com
>
> 2. Godwin's Commentary
>
> Godwin actually wrote a short article for Wired Magazine on the
> Law back in 1994:
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
>
> The article is actually more about the power and danger of memes
> (thought-viruses) than about Godwin's Law itself, but it's worthwhile
> reading for anybody who actually got this far into the FAQ.
>
> 3. Author's Note on the Holocaust
>
> Over the years, I have received several emails regarding this FAQ
> regarding the Holocaust itself, either disputing the holocaust or the
> numbers listed in this FAQ. I'd just like to make it clear that I don't
> have any particular desire to debate these points; this FAQ is meant to
> point out and explain a quirk of human nature, not to codify the history
> of World War II.
>
> 4. Additional Corollaries
>
> There have been many additional corollaries and otherwise related
> rules created since the net.legends FAQ codified them, and/or missed in
> that FAQ. Those that have been brought to the author's attention:
>
> Stead's Law (named for Lew Stead of alt.pagan fame):
> Any discussion between more than 2 Pagans will eventually come around
> to Christianity.
> - Reported by Donal Brewich <do...@brewich.com>
> - More information regarding its history would be appreciated
>
> --
> Copyright 1999-2003, Tim Skirvinhttp://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin
what are you try'n to say .... are you making fun of me ... you're an
antisemitic jew hater ... i betcha hate black clowns too
b o z o
Feb 2, 2013, 3:50:19 PM2/2/13
to
> what are you try'n to say .... are you making fun of me ... are you an
> antisemitic jew hater ... i betcha hate black clowns too
BTW Does posting about Nazis, Godwin's Law and getting away with it
have anything to do with Subway's 8" Foot Long?
0 new messages