Re: On Godwin's Law

Lloyd Wood (
Mon, 16 Mar 1998 22:49:39 +0000 (GMT)

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, David Crook wrote:

> Seriously though, jumping on people for "misquoting" Godwin's law is
> like blasting people for passing a goodtimes letter. Yes, technically
> you are correct,

being correct is rather the point, surprisingly enough.

> but trying to use that to prop up your newly-formed ego
> isn't a good idea. Its just not a big enough accomplishment to impress
> people.

Last I looked, people weren't impressed by cars they would be
incapable of designing, by operating systems and applications they
would be incapable of writing, by restaurants whose food they would be
incapable of preparing, by laws they would be incapable of properly
comprehending, by films they would be incapable of scripting, by
companies they would be incapable of starting and running, or by
doctorates they would be incapable of getting.

The accomplishment stands alone; your impressions matter not - unless
you can better the accomplishment itself. Say what you like; it's the
doing that matters.

Oh, hang on, you're saying that impressing people is itself an
accomplishment? I think I'll have to disagree on that one; you have to
have something to impress them _with_. And even then, opinion is

> What's next? Going to flame somebody for a typo?

What, like Microsoft's missing apostrophes? Been there, done that;
your deliberately leaving apostrophes out when you're not actually
using Outlook Express is not fair play, and obscures the issue.
Eventually, this practice would catch on and everyone will be leaving
them out, and then where would we be?


Gee, were those rhetorical questions? Are these?