Calm down, there’s no new rule, so far as I know. And a good thing too: no one wants to see you doing what you propose, cluttering up threads just for the sake of establishing a basis for pitting them. But it’s odd to see someone starting a Pit thread over behavior in another Pit thread without even so much investment as having participated, however peripherally, in the latter, so I asked.
Then you said you had shown up on the first page of the thread, which led to some confusion, because you hadn’t. I mean, I can’t make any sense out of that claim at all. Maybe this will help me figure out where I went wrong: please show me the post that you characterized in your OP (of this thread, “Godwin this and Godwin that…”) as “a joke, a mere exercise in mimetics.” Then maybe I can backtrack and figure out what thread you were really talking about and why you didn’t link to it instead of the Suharto thread. Because
doesn’t cut it. Following hard upon a post attempting to balance allegations of mass murder against economic and administrative competence, the post was as clear as a bell, not only to me (which may have been a lucky guess but one vindicated by subsequent posts) but to everyone else in the thread. And then, in defiance of your plerophory, they went ahead and had a polite and productive discussion. Which is, I guess, the biggest reason you didn’t jump into that thread (which was already in the Pit and is where the offense you cite occurred, after all): you’d have looked like a fool. So if you wanted to start a fight, you had to start it elsewhere, and here we are.
No, there’s no rule, and nobody wants one. But this thread makes you look as if the real issue was your desire to pick a fight, and the topic of controversy a poor afterthought.
By golly, I bet that’s it. I was looking too hard for reasons compatible with some rational basis for this thread. I can understand why the OP would characterize Godwin’s Law as a joke, but not why he thinks the law is an “exercise in mimetics.” Mostly I don’t see how his point would be advanced in any way even if it was both, since even as a joke it still illustrates a concept that is both real and valid. So if that’s the point, it’s a really dull one (except insofar as it would disqualify the mere mention of the name Godwin as a complete argument, but as I’ve said, I don’t think anybody in the linked thread is doing that).
Nonetheless, I think you’ve once again headed the nail on the hit, as they say, and it does neatly eliminate one of my sources of confusion by postulating poor reasoning and/or vocabulary on the part of the OP to explain it. I’m still struggling with the rest, though. What do you think he was asserting, five or so posts ago, by saying he “showed up in the first page?” He sure as hell didn’t mean this thread.
Submitted to Reader’s Digest Word Power. If they respond with a check, be assured that the money will be squandered on drugs and lewd women. But never let it be said I am not grateful, you will be in my thoughts, albeit briefly.
Well, not so much what it is as what someone called it, and that’s why everyone should buy a new dictionary every decade or so. I thought you were just misspelling the word mimetics, by gum, and I couldn’t figure out any coherent set of facts that would make your posts make any sense. I’m relieved by the fact, as you put it, that it’s all down to someone who recently “made the whole damn thing up.” I read the link, by the way, and truer words were never spoken. Memetics? Phooey.
However, before arguing, I’d rather have you put together a coherent couple of sentences explaining why Godwin’s law is an exercise in memetics in a different way than just any old shared thought is, why that would matter in the first place, why you called it a joke when the same source you rely on for the memetic reference seems to renounce that characterization, what thread you were talking about when you said that you had shown up on the first page of it, and basically explain why you’re picking a fight over an interpretation of Godwin’s Law that no one discoverable has violated or disputed. I can do without it. I don’t require sense from strangers. But sometimes, when I get it, I learn stuff.
I grew up in a large though decrepit house stuffed to the third-story rafters with very old books. I’ve often wished everyone could do that.
We haven’t met recently. Please accept my best regards and wishes. And condolences that the word “plerophory” has long been dropped by many modern dictionaries. The lewd women may insist on cash. But I hope you meet one who is as philological as she is flexible.
Everybody wants to sulk once in a while, Airman Doors, USAF but, for Pete’s sake, kaylasdad99 has a Snicker’s bar bet on your explanation here! It’s not like you haven’t been asked politely, and let’s face it, you’ve pretty much avoided every question directed at you. So pony up just the once, even if you’re really above it, and answer the nice polite people who are asking you civil questions. Okay?
