Re: The Flu vaccine is worthless and damaging

[Bronsing]

Lee J. Moore > wrote in message
...
> But then that's why Godwin's law exists. Too many people on Usenet are
> ready to wheel out Hitler whenever they're without suitable retort.

No. Godwin formulated his law in the same way a natural law would be
formulated. It says :

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.

source: http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/g/godwinslaw.html

From this it is clear that Godwin merely formulated a 'natural' law, and in
some groups this is taken as the point at which the thread ends. Just though
I'd be pedantic :-)

--

Robert Bronsing

Can't you see?
It all makes perfect sense,
expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence

(R. Waters)

[Marko Proberto]

"Bronsing" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Lee J. Moore > wrote in message
> ...
> > But then that's why Godwin's law exists. Too many people on Usenet are
> > ready to wheel out Hitler whenever they're without suitable retort.
>
> No. Godwin formulated his law in the same way a natural law would be
> formulated. It says :
>
> 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.
>
> source: http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/g/godwinslaw.html
>
> From this it is clear that Godwin merely formulated a 'natural' law, and
in
> some groups this is taken as the point at which the thread ends. Just
though
> I'd be pedantic :-)

I can out-pedantic you!

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug18.215029.19421%40eff.org

Straight from the horse's keyboard!

[Robert Bronsing]

"Marko Proberto" > schreef in bericht
et...
>
> "Bronsing" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Lee J. Moore > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > But then that's why Godwin's law exists. Too many people on Usenet
are
> > > ready to wheel out Hitler whenever they're without suitable retort.
> >
> > No. Godwin formulated his law in the same way a natural law would be
> > formulated. It says :
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > source: http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/g/godwinslaw.html
> >
> > From this it is clear that Godwin merely formulated a 'natural' law, and
> in
> > some groups this is taken as the point at which the thread ends. Just
> though
> > I'd be pedantic :-)
>
> I can out-pedantic you!
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug18.215029.19421%40eff.org
>
> Straight from the horse's keyboard!
>

All hail to the Pendantic of Pedantics! ;-)


--

Robert Bronsing

But that's okay, see the children bleed
It'll look great on the TV

[JG]

"Marko Proberto" > wrote in message
et...

> I can out-pedantic you!

Um, Mark, not to quibble or anything (never!), but that should be
"out-pedatize." <g>

[JG]

"JG" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in message
> et...

> > I can out-pedantic you!

> Um, Mark, not to quibble or anything (never!), but that should be
> "out-pedatize." <g>

Yikes! How utterly embarrassing! Before I lose my license to
pedantize, make that "out-pedantize." (Okay, who spilled sticky stuff
on the "n" key???)
>

[Marko Proberto]

"JG" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in message
> et...
>
> > I can out-pedantic you!
>
> Um, Mark, not to quibble or anything (never!), but that should be
> "out-pedatize." <g>

<Note deft manner where I return to the subject of m.k.h.>

Does that have anything to do with pediatric medicine?

[dickinson]

JG wrote:
> "JG" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in message
>> et...
>
>>> I can out-pedantic you!
>
>> Um, Mark, not to quibble or anything (never!), but that should be
>> "out-pedatize." <g>
>
> Yikes! How utterly embarrassing! Before I lose my license to
> pedantize, make that "out-pedantize." (Okay, who spilled sticky stuff
> on the "n" key???)

Don't fret, I use the word "pedanticate" quite frequently :-)

[Marko Proberto]

"Jan" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The Flu vaccine is worthless and damaging
> >From: Eric Bohlman
> >Date: 11/18/2003 5:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (Jan) wrote in
> :
> >
> >> You can't believe anything Mark says, I serious doubt his business is
> >> big enough to donate that many computers, like his buddies, he most
> >> likely made the whole thing up.
> >>
> >> 386 computers, my foot.
> >
> >When a computer-literate person
>
> ZZzz. Insult noted.
>
> > sees "386 computers" in the context in
> >which Mark wrote it, he or she immediately thinks "computers with Intel
> >80386 processor chips" which were commonly called "386s."
>
> LOL. Sorry, you are completely wrong. When one see 386 computers, they
think
> 386 computers.

Ho wowoudl yuou know, since there is no evidcen that you think?

> >He doesn't think
> >"three hundred and eighty-six different computers." 386 computers used
to
> >be rather common items to donate; in fact I still see some of them at the
> >local thrift stores.
>
> And???
>
> Your point???
>
> I see computer is thrift stores also. I also see a lie when it is a
whopper.

We are not talking fast food, but 80386 computers. You just are so desperate
to show people with whom you disagree are liars that you do not have a clue.


>
> I repeat.
>
> >
> >> You can't believe anything Mark says, I serious doubt his business is
> >> big enough to donate that many computers, like his buddies, he most
> >> likely made the whole thing up.
> >>
> >> 386 computers, my foot.
>
> You know Eric, I used to think you were one step above the others
debunkers,
> with your recent posts, you have reduced to the bottom with them, anything
to
> protect your buddies. You are getting absurd.

Actually, you have got to absurd, and with this one, passed it with the red
lights flashing.