crazietalk.net

And the latest person to bring on Godwin's Law is...

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/10/03/hank- ... ?hpt=hp_t2

There goes the only reason I had to watch any MNF.

Hank Williams Jr apologizes for his remarks:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/04/showbiz/w ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Lavabe wrote:Hank Williams Jr apologizes for his remarks:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/04/showbiz/w ... ?hpt=hp_t2

I wouldn't call that an apology. An apology is, "I'm sorry I said that."

What Williams said was, "I'm sorry people were offended by what I said."

I give him a bit of a pass, but not much. He needs a little help on how to be a totally obnoxious drunk.

What we have here is a partially coherent, rambling comparison that invoked ...a dead dude possibly somehow being able to come back to life in order to play golf with a living, breathing dude...Bebe. The Prime Minister should probably feel offended.

What you have here, is the inane ramblings of a hungover idiot on vacation, awake a lot earier than he probably should be.

Here's another possible example of Godwin's Law, found at the Wall Street protest (from cnn.com):

As per Godwin's Law, it's adios to to Hank Williams Jr.:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Chicken or egg?

captmojo wrote:Chicken or egg?

According to Godwin's Law, discussion of even THAT question ends as soon as you invoke the Third Reich.

captmojo wrote:I give him a bit of a pass, but not much. He needs a little help on how to be a totally obnoxious drunk.

What we have here is a partially coherent, rambling comparison that invoked ...a dead dude possibly somehow being able to come back to life in order to play golf with a living, breathing dude...Bebe. The Prime Minister should probably feel offended.

What you have here, is the inane ramblings of a hungover idiot on vacation, awake a lot earier than he probably should be.

The Prime Minister?

Lavabe wrote:And the latest person to bring on Godwin's Law is...

On a Gibson Les Paul forum that I frequent a variance to Godwin's Law has been created which is known as Colchar's Variance. Perhaps we should consider this for use here.

Here is the explanation from the buddy who created it:

Colchar's Variance is a spinoff of Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies, which in brief states that the longer an Internet debate of any type persists, the more likely it is that one side of the debate will invoke the idea of Hitler and the Nazi Party, or the atrocities of the Third Reich, and will then apply such imagery to the opinion of the oppositional debater(s). This is an effect tha thas been observed to be nearly 100% applicable to all Internet-based debates and has come to be held as almost canonical within various Internet communities.

Later on, it also became a corollary that when Godwin's Law was evoked, the side of the debate that invoked the idea of Hitler, et.al., had "lost" the debate and that the thread containing the debate should then be closed.

Colchar's Variance came into being after colchar repeatedly invoked Godwin's Law within certain threads on this very site. I observed, however, that every time he did so, that nobody wanted to close the thread and kept on debating long after the invocation of Godwin. Sometimes, I even saw others telling colchar himself that they refused to abide by the traditional corollary along the way. Having observed this phenomenon multiple times, this writer then visited other sites and found out that Godwin's Law was not being applied with the corollary in most cases, and that in the majority of instances, the debating parties openly refused to abide by the corollary that the thread should be closed. It's not just this site, in other words...

And so I decided that Godwin's Law needed a stated variance, since the traditional response to its invocation was no longer in full effect. I came up with the term "Colchar's Variance" because:

A. It was colchar who first alerted my personal attention to the existence of Godwin's Law in the first place... I had never heard of it until colchar himself invoked it, with the results I mentioned above, and,

B. That it was on MLP that I first discovered that the corollary tradition of Godwin's Law wasn't being observed in a uniform manner; later, I learned that the original corollary wasn't being applied anywhere else that I could find. Clearly, this identified a variance of Godwin's Law, which was by no means being treated in a consistent manner.

Because of colchar's repeated invocation of Godwin's Law, with the repeated result that the thread didn't close, I named the newly-emergent effect as being "Colchar's Variance", since it is not a law unto itself as per Godwin... but is instead a further effect that one could build off the Godwin paradigm.

I named it this in honor of the person who first drew my attention to the existence of Godwin's Law as a tribute. Again: I wouldn't have come across Godwin's Law if not for colchar, and colchar invoked it without seeing the corollary coming into effect so many times that it was clear to me that Godwin wasn't all he was cracked up to be, and that colchar rules.

I could have named this variance after myself, but didn't because I felt that to do so would have been an act of sheer, insufferable ego. I am not the person who enlightened myself as to the presence of Godwin's Law, and I am not the one who attempted to utilize it during debates on this site. So for me to have named it as Roberteaux's Variance was a thing that was unacceptable to me as an honest student and scholar of Internet-driven sociological phenomena.

colchar LIVES!!!

And so do the Maple Leafs!

Do you get any money for coming up with your variance?

Lavabe wrote:Do you get any money for coming up with your variance?

I wish. Rob (the guy who came up with it) might but, if so, the bastard has been holding out on me. I think I should get a royalty payment every time it is used but, alas, I doubt that will ever happen.

colchar wrote:

Lavabe wrote:Do you get any money for coming up with your variance?

I wish. Rob (the guy who came up with it) might but, if so, the bastard has been holding out on me. I think I should get a royalty payment every time it is used but, alas, I doubt that will ever happen.

At the very least, a fine moderator should then change this thread title to "Colchar's Variance." Please.

Speaking of interesting dilemmas, how does one go about discussing Godwin's Law without being required to immediately closing the thread? Must one of us invoke Godwin's Law as a part of the discussion of Godwin's Law in order for the thread to be closed?

ArkieDukie wrote:Speaking of interesting dilemmas, how does one go about discussing Godwin's Law without being required to immediately closing the thread? Must one of us invoke Godwin's Law as a part of the discussion of Godwin's Law in order for the thread to be closed?

This post put the following into my head: how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Followed quickly by the variance:

How much ground could a groundhog grind if a groundhog could grind ground.

Lavabe wrote:

colchar wrote:

Lavabe wrote:Do you get any money for coming up with your variance?

I wish. Rob (the guy who came up with it) might but, if so, the bastard has been holding out on me. I think I should get a royalty payment every time it is used but, alas, I doubt that will ever happen.

At the very least, a fine moderator should then change this thread title to "Colchar's Variance." Please.

But then nobody who hasn't read it would have any clue what the thread is about!

ArkieDukie wrote:Speaking of interesting dilemmas, how does one go about discussing Godwin's Law without being required to immediately closing the thread? Must one of us invoke Godwin's Law as a part of the discussion of Godwin's Law in order for the thread to be closed?

Well one could always invoke Colchar's Variance.