Differences between version 2 and revision by previous author of GodwinsLaw.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Revision, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 2 | Last edited on Saturday, September 14, 2002 3:40:18 pm | by CraigBox | Revert |
| Older page: | version 1 | Last edited on Saturday, September 14, 2002 1:09:20 am | by GlynWebster | Revert |
@@ -1 +1,20 @@
-Godwins
Law = "Mention
Hitler and
the [
thread]
is over."
(Or at least
the ''rational
'' part
of the thread is over
...)
+__Godwin's
Law__
+As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or
Hitler approaches one.
+
+__Corollary of Practicality__
+There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs,
the 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.
+
+__Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law__
+Libertarianism
(pro, con, and internal faction fights) is
the primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.
+
+__Morgan
's Corollary to Godwin
's Law__
+As soon as such a comparison occurs, someone will start a Nazi-discussion spinoff thread on alt.censorship.
+
+__Sircar
's Corollary__
+If the online discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.
+
+__Van der Leun
's Corollary__
+As global connectivity improves, the probability
of actual Nazis being on
the Net approaches one
.
+
+__Miller's Paradox__
+As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's Law converges to zero
.
