[quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

"... our puppet regime was. "[/quote]

That's a funny thing to call a government elected freely by a people that risked their lives to cast the first ballots used in their country in three decades....

[/quote]

Then why isn't anybody laughing?

Thanks for the Milosevic update, I guess I was thinking of Ciao!Chessgoo.

Fascism... By Musolini's own definition, this gov't was the most Fascist in history.

Mr. A

[quote=ZAID ABDUL AZIZ]

[quote=skeedaddy2]Can anyone remember any other head of state that was executed? .

[/quote]

Many believe that Arafat was executed (actually....rather poisened by his own people).

I would not be suprised if that weree the case. Like Saddam, he was an evil monster that stole from his own people.

Peace to all...

[/quote]

Zaid, I'm confused. By ending you posts with "Peace to all" exactly how many people on the planet are you excluding from "All"? You've already excluded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wanting him gone. You call Arafat a monster, want U.S. soldiers to fight hezbolla and die doing it. So exactly what does peace to all mean to you?

I have a problem with somone who advocates death and in the same post wishes peace to all.

I stuck around in St Petersburg, When I thought it time for a change, Killed the Tsar and his ministers, Anastasia, screamed in pain. (You HAVE to know what that's from!)

Sympathy for the Devil....whooo whooo  Please ta metcha hope you know my name.

BING!!!

But whats puzzling you is nature of my game!

You gotta love the Stones!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u][quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

"... our puppet regime was. "[/quote]

That's a funny thing to call a government elected freely by a people that risked their lives to cast the first ballots used in their country in three decades....

[/quote]

Then why isn't anybody laughing? [/quote]

Just because you can't hear them doesn't mean they're not laughing at you....

[quote=mranonymous2u] Fascism... By Musolini's own definition, this gov't was the most Fascist in history.

Mr. A

[/quote]

See above, Re:laughter...

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

Re: Fascism. Look it up. (but we both know that you won't now don't we Mike?)

Thirdly, you are just too easy to get going! 

Mr. A

[quote=BondGuy] So exactly what does peace to all mean to you? [/quote]

If Churchill and Chamberlin could differ on the meaning of the word "peace" is it a wonder that there are various opinions here as well?

GODWIN'S LAW!

You lose!

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Re: Fascism. Look it up.  [/quote]

You do that, and then get back to us about your previous assertion...

[quote=mranonymous2u]Thirdly, you are just too easy to get going! 

Mr. A

[/quote]

You've confused "get going" with having a chuckle at your predictability

[quote=mranonymous2u]

GODWIN'S LAW!

You lose!

Mr. A

[/quote]

Typical A, loose on the details, the facts and the truth...

Goodwin's law, for those of you scratching your heads says; "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".

Now, Hitler or Nazis were mentioned where, exactly?

I plant a seed, knowing how it's going to grow, and you take credit for its growing.

Typical. Boring. Butler.

Mr. A 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

GODWIN'S LAW!

You lose!

Mr. A

[/quote]

Typical A, loose on the details, the facts and the truth...

Goodwin's law, for those of you scratching your heads says; "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".

Now, Hitler or Nazis were mentioned where, exactly?

[/quote]

Typical Mikebutler, making a "point" and then running away from it as fast as his legs can carry him (which tends to chafe his ears rubbing between his buttcheeks!)

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy] So exactly what does peace to all mean to you? [/quote]

If Churchill and Chamberlin could differ on the meaning of the word "peace" is it a wonder that there are various opinions here as well?

[/quote]

We all know what your implication was. You are intellectually dishonest.

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u]

I plant a seed, knowing how it's going to grow, and you take credit for its growing.

Typical. Boring. Butler.

Mr. A 

[/quote]

FWIW, when reading your posts I liberally apply Hanlon's razor .

That's a good one, and something new to me, I like it. Thank you for pointing it out!

FWIW I'll now have to read your posts with a larger dose of the IMAX Razor.

Projecting much?

Mr. A

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=mranonymous2u][quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

GODWIN'S LAW!

You lose!

Mr. A

[/quote]

Typical A, loose on the details, the facts and the truth...

Goodwin's law, for those of you scratching your heads says; "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".

Now, Hitler or Nazis were mentioned where, exactly?

[/quote]

Typical Mikebutler, making a "point" and then running away from it as fast as his legs can carry him (which tends to chafe his ears rubbing between his buttcheeks!) [/quote]

I see, "running away" is pointing out that you're simply wrong, providing the correct defintion and asking you where it applies. Thanks for settling that mystery for us all....

[quote=mranonymous2u] [quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy] So exactly what does peace to all mean to you? [/quote]

If Churchill and Chamberlain could differ on the meaning of the word "peace" is it a wonder that there are various opinions here as well?

[/quote]

We all know what your implication was. You are intellectually dishonest.

Mr. A

[/quote]

Just who do you claim to speak for with “we”, oh ye who incorrectly inferred something other than what was written? Those two men disagreed on the definition of the word "peace", period. No reference was made to Nazis or Hitler. No analogizes were offered about Nazis or Hitler. Hilter and Nazis were not germane to my comment.

Your misunderstanding of the definition of "Godwin's law" and confusion on your part about the simple English I put before you isn't my problem.

"Intellectually dishonest" is exactly what someone in your position, twisting what someone wrote/said and then misapplying a "law" or outside reference to it, is. Obviously, based on your posts, it’s habit forming….

We, the intellectually honest people, like to use the word "axiomatic" in times like these.

Axiomatic, strictly speaking, refers to the axiom  If A=B and B=C then A=C. Verbally though, we use the word axiomatic to describe situatons that are considered among the intellectually honest to be foundational to the conversation, we've all agreed that these things mean thus and such there's no need to argue about them anymore.

In this case, we all agree that when we mention Chuchill and Chamberlain the unmentioned third party is Hitler. This shortcut allows all of us to conjure up the failure of Chamberlain's attempts to negotiate with Hitler.

Since this is Axiomatic, my invocation of Godwin's Law was appropriate, and all your other claims are therefore baseless.

You lost, you are dismissed. This discussion is over.

NEXT!

Mr. A

BTW for those who might be new to the Godwin's Law, what Butler said above is the letter of it and this is its practical application.

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves also to impose an upper bound on thread length in general. However, it is rare for the person accused of an unfair comparison to Nazism to concede the argument themselves. Therefore, the argument will likely arise in another thread if the participants have a sufficient level of emotional attachment to the topic of debate. This calls the long-term utility of Godwin's Law into question.

It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's Law (in the above sense) will be unsuccessful. This is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception". "RGB's Restriction of Quirk's Exception", also states: "In cases where the subject of the comparison to Hitler fails to recognize the applicability of Quirk's Exception, Quirk's Exception shall not apply and Godwin's Law shall take effect in its normal manner." [\center]

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

We, the intellectually honest people,....[/quote]

You might have well begun that with "We, the people who can fly unassisted by machinery" or "We, the people who can hold our breath for days at a time"….. any of the above would have provoked the same outburst of laughter the intro you chose to use  did.

 [quote=mranonymous2u]

In this case, we all agree that when we mention Chuchill and Chamberlain the unmentioned third party is Hitler.[/quote]

In this case you and the frog in your pocket that you speak for are wrong.

There was no reference or comparison to Hitler or Nazis in my post as Goodwin’s Law would require to meet its definition. I could just as easily said Reagan and Carter disagreed about the definition of “peace”.

You simply incorrectly inferred something that wasn’t there. Nothing new there, the fact that you would continue to spin it, and not simply admit your error and move along is nothing new, either.

 However, it is rare for the person accused of an unfair comparison to Nazism to concede the argument themselves.

"There was no reference or comparison to Hitler or Nazis in my post as Goodwin’s Law would require to meet its definition. I could just as easily said Reagan and Carter disagreed about the definition of 'peace'.” Mikebutler222

Thank you Mike for proving the point. There is a speck of honesty in you that tricked you into revealing yourself.

You could have chosen Reagan and Carter, but you didn't. You could have chosen Lincoln and Jackson, but you didn't. You could have chosen Arafat and Sharon, but you didn't. You chose who you chose because of who and what they reference.  We know when we refer to Lincoln, Jackson we are referring to the time of the Civil War.  We know that when we refer to Arafat Sharon we are talking about Israel/Palistine. We know that when we refer to Carter Reagan we are NOT talking about the Revolutionary war, The Civil War, WWI or WWII or Viet Nam (specifically).

You chose who you chose because of what they are most associated with (dealing with Hitler and the Nazis).

It's a tenuous connection, for sure, but it is close enough to qualify you for LOSER! If you had chosen only Churchill and matched him with some different second person, Ghandi for example then the connection could not have been made. Too bad.

Mr. A

"when we refer to Arafat Sharon we are talking about Israel/Palistine"

True....but must we mention them in the same sentence?  Argghhh!