On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:47:09PM -0800, Tim May wrote, quoting someone:
> >
> >But now, I am beginning to see what you are saying. We shouldn't blame
> >*speech* for the result of speech. It's the *result* of said speech that
> >should be the grounds of wrongness. Makes sense to me.
>
> If y
> Let's not adopt this banal convention on this list. Much bandwidth is
> wasted by people arguing about invocation of Godwin's Law and
> inventing their own variants (such as May's Lemma, that more
> bandwidth is wasted).
Whatever. Lets not be too serious.
> If you are this easily persuade
At 11:23 PM -0500 2/27/01, David Stultz wrote:
> > It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT
>> drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the
>> end all).
>
>Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or
>"Nazi", it'
