> The latter is the real reason for this response - if you start
> comparing people and actions with those of thje Nazis, be it ever so
> much in jest, please be utterly sure that you do so very clearly so
> there is no doubt what you intend.<

> Why would I compare Jim to a Nazi? <:-O

That is the reasonable implication to be taken from such a veiled
comment. And from its explanation, alas :-(. See below.

> You see Russell, this is what happens when one employs allegories (I learn
> from you). IMO Jim's position was better described by Niemoeller, which by
> an indirect reference invokes Godwin's Law. Is it clearer now?

Please read carefully if this sub-thread is of any interest to you.
Please try not to invert my meanings or ignore anything specific which is said.

A reference to Godwin is (very very very) clearly saying that
something in the argument is reminiscent of the actions of the Nazis.
[ie This is the meaning which would get the right answer in a yes/no
multiple choice question in any exam you would ever be liable to find
it in - so it is what 99% of people would understand when they read
such a reference.]

It would not be clear to the vast majority that a reference to Godwin
should be taken to mean that some action *opposite* to that which was
characteristic of the Nazis was being implied. [ie This is the meaning
which would get the wrong answer in a yes/no multiple choice question
in any exam you would ever be liable to find it in - so it is what 99%
of people would NOT understand you to mean when they read such a
reference.]

No specific mention of the person being compared was made.
No mention of which characteristic or anti-characteristic alluded to was made.
All that was effectively said by mentioning Godwin was, " ... this all
reminds me of the things that happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930's
...".

You then say the reference to Godwin was really reference to the
actions of Niemoeller.
Even this is not totally clear.
Which further demonstrates my point.
If it means that the person or action is similar to that of
Niemoeller's in th 1930's, which he subsequently repudiated as being
effectively pro-Nazi, then the reference is STILL standard Godwin,
just with another level of obfuscation.

So my original comment stands - references to Godwin are understood bt
99% of people (as would be cored in a yes/no exam) as implying that an
action is similar to that of the Nazis, and the Niemoeller comparison
reinforces that impression.

As you will no doubt say that this is not what you meant, then it
would be immensely wise not to use such indirect references. If you
mean that Jim or i or anyone else are like shining examples of people
who styood up to the Nazis, then please say so (eg perhaps Dietrich
Bonhoeffer) then please say so directly if you consider it
appropriate. If the opposite is meant, say so.

Best of all though, don't refer to Godwin or the Nazis at all :-).

Re forbidden subjects and historical views. I'm not sure that
discussions of such are forbidden on thr list in OT - although they
would probably lead rapidly to problems due to encroaching into other
areas. My attempt at historical discourse was based on what I have
read in many places. I claim no historical accuracy for any part of it
and if something there is wrong and I would usefully be informed of
this then I'd be genuinely willing to hear. But, I suggest you do so
offlist.



  Russell
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist