Discussion:
How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ
(too old to reply)
dolf
2018-08-01 01:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Would someone please tell that neo-Nazi ***@ckwit Tim Skirvin
<***@killfile.org> that if he is going to keep posting the
propagandist ***@t known as “Godwin's Law FAQ” that he ought to have
INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY to recognise that such particular rhetorical device
is common enough to have its own name, *REDUCTIO* *AD* *HITLERUM*.

Subject: Re: — REDUCTIO AD TRUMPIUM

------------ Begin Message ------------
Group: aus.politics
MsgID: <Itidnb8-wuTfOcHGnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>

REDUCTIO AD TRUMPIUM can be deployed as a fine art form within poetic
juxtaposition to cast an aspersion upon the observer such as by the
phrases:

AS THEY ROT SOIL SODDEN

and

YOU ROTTEN SOD

— TIME DIDN’T DENY —

“YE BE NOT
FORGOTTEN.
AS THEY ROT.
SOIL SODDEN.

WE REMEMBER.
OF VALOUR BORN.
FAITHFUL FOREVER.
ER EVE NOR MORN.”

[ANZAC Centennial 25 April 2018]

<http://www.grapple369.com/docs/Time%20Didn%27t%20Deny%2020180425.pdf>

dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
Such is an example of *CAUSERIE* as informal essay on REDUCTIO AD TRUMPIUM

noun
1. an informal talk or chat.
2. a short, informal essay, article, etc.
3. Word for the day of 29 July 2018; Courtesy www.dictionary.com

Quotes
I was once booked by my manager to give a causerie in the drawing-room of a
New York millionaire.


— *BLINKERED* DEVOTIONS —

“IF I KNOW GOOD.
AND I KNOW EVIL.
BE IT UNDERSTOOD.
I AIN’T NO DEVIL.

WELL KISS MY RING.
YOU ROTTEN SOD.
‘N MOUTH MY DING.
YOU AIN’T NO GOD.”

That poem is an example of Intellectual capacity because it computes to
#312 / #333 as identical to what I was thinking...

dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
It was an example of *REDUCTIO* *AD* *TRUMPIUM*.

That within logic, juxtaposition is a logical fallacy on the part of the
observer, where two items placed next to each other imply a correlation,
when none is actually claimed

The statement: “Much of what you have conveyed is delusional and grounded
upon facts.”

And such ought to have read: “Much of what you have conveyed is delusional
and *NOT* grounded upon facts.”

This particular rhetorical device is common enough to have its own name
which we call *REDUCTIO* *AD* *TRUMPIUM* as there is a historical precedent
for doing so...

WOULD V’s WOULDN’T

Coined by Leo Strauss in 1951, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from
the term used in logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).

According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad
misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one
of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments,
because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler
and Nazism have been condemned in the modern world.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum>

Daniel60 <***@eternal-september.org> wrote:
MattB wrote on 28/07/2018 7:19 AM:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 05:39:37 +1000, dolf <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I do not practice asceticism however I do have a regard for Hasidic
Jewish religious belief.

I treat women with the utmost dignity, respect and equality since
BOEK is my mother’s name.

Much of what you have conveyed is delusional and *NOT* grounded upon
facts.

I'm glad you don't as religious fundies are crazy and often true
evil.

Gee Whiz!! Isn't it, sort of, contradictory to suggest something is
"delusional" and "grounded upon facts"??


Piaget writes that within logic, juxtaposition is a logical fallacy on the
part of the observer, where two items placed next to each other imply a
correlation, when none is actually claimed. For example, an illustration of
a politician and Adolf Hitler on the same page would imply that the
politician had a common ideology with Hitler. Similarly, saying "Hitler was
in favour of #231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL, and so are you" would have the
same effect.

This particular rhetorical device is common enough to have its own name,
*REDUCTIO* *AD* *HITLERUM*.



Tim Skirvin <***@killfile.org> wrote:
> Archive-name: usenet/legends/godwin
> Posting-Frequency: monthly
> Last-Modified: October 7, 2003
> Version: 1.15
> URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin
> Maintainer: ***@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>
> Godwin's Law FAQ
> -or-
> "How to post about Nazis and get away with it"
>
> One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention
> Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion
> you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a
> long and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely wrong. This FAQ
> is an attempt to set straight as much of the history and meaning of Godwin's
> Law as possible, and hopefully encourage users to invoke it a bit more
> sparingly. Of course, knowing Usenet, it won't do an ounce of good...
>
>
> [Standard Disclaimers: this document assumes you have some basic knowledge
> of Usenet; if you don't, go check out news.announce.newusers for a while to
> gain said knowledge. Misuse of the information contained within this FAQ
> is not the responsibility of the author (though he's pretty confused exactly
> how you could misuse this information). Copyright 1999-2002, Tim Skirvin,
> all rights reserved, <FISH><, fnord, furrfu.]
>
>
> I. The Basics
> 1. What is Godwin's Law?
>
> Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
> (***@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
> the Jargon File:
>
> As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
> involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
>
>
> 2. What does it mean?
>
> It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
> goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
> approach one.
>
>
> 3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
>
> Aah, now *there's* the real question.
>
> In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
> years or so, the Nazis were a German political party led by Adolf Hitler
> that slaughtered upwards of ten million people that didn't meet their
> standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world
> in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of
> people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
> them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
>
> As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
> more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
> insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
> notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
> the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
> Nazi comparison.
>
>
> 4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
>
> The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
> thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
> mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
> become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
>
> So, what this means in practical terms:
>
> o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
> wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
> insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
> o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
> was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
> the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
> o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
> going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
> a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
> other side.
>
>
> 5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?
>
> Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
> something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
> happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
> flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
> is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
>
>
> II. What does it mean?
> 1. Didn't we already spend the last section talking about this?
>
> Well, yeah, but people don't seem to get the point...
>
>
> 2. What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
>
> Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that
> your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion.
> Them's the breaks.
>
> That isn't to say, of course, that you can't talk about Nazis and
> such on Usenet - this *is* Usenet, after all, where virtually every
> conversation that goes on is fairly ludicrous in the first place. It's
> just going to take you a lot more effort to find real information out of
> there and to avoid getting yourself off on side-threads - which you'll
> eventually do regardless, but you can try to put it off.
>
> This also applies if a thread mutates into an actual discussion of
> Nazis, of course.
>
>
> 3. What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?
>
> Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting
> Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate. Still, trying
> to invoke Godwin's Law near a Neo-Nazi isn't really a good idea because
> it's not terribly original and they'll probably get off on it anyway.
> Just ignore them and occasionally publish a FAQ detailing what actually
> happened during the Holocaust and such; arguing probably isn't going to
> help you.
>
>
> 4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?
>
> In the proper kind of flamewar, Godwin's Law can be used as a
> gambit - how can you force your opponent to invoke the Law? Actually
> teaching these skills is tough, of course, and is best done through
> experience. Experience with chess and alt.flame are recommended.
>
>
> 5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
>
> The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
> and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
> because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
> don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
> an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
> I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
> post is unnecessary.
>
>
> 6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
>
> Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
> thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
> virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
> the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (***@swcp.com):
>
> Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
> "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
>
> Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
>
>
> 7. Does Godwin's Law apply in the real world?
>
> Actually, yeah, but usually discussions in Real Life end by
> somebody wandering off in disgust before it can be invoked.
>
>
> 8. Are there any topics that lead directly to Godwin Invocations?
>
> Well, yeah. Of course. Case's Corollary to the Law states "if
> the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi
> comparison being made becomes equal to one" - but that's just an old list.
> Abortion and gun control debates always lead to Nazi comparisons; talk
> with a Libertarian for more than a few hours and he'll almost certainly
> bring up Nazis; book-burning is pretty much considered a sub-topic of
> Nazism at this point. Hell, talk about anything politically related and
> you'll eventually get there.
>
> If you're really bored, a fun game to play is Six Degrees of Godwin.
> Take a topic - any topic - and see how quickly you can relate it to Nazis
> using legitimate topic drift methods. For example: a discussion about
> computers will eventually lead to discussions of keyboards and which are
> best, followed by a lot of complaining about the Windows key on 104-key
> keyboards, leading to complaints about Microsoft, forcing the standard
> MS-vs-government flamewar that I'm sure you're all aware of, leading to
> attacks on Microsoft's "fascist" tactics by one side or another, which
> will force the other side to start talking about the differences between
> fascism, capitalism, and, of course, Nazism! The fun never stops!
>
>
>
> Appendix A: The Many Forms of Godwin's Law
>
> "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the
> participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."
> - Richard Sexton (http://www.vrx.net/richard/) stating what would later
> be known as Godwin's Law, Message-ID <***@gryphon.COM>, 16 Oct 1989
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21000%40gryphon.COM&output=gplain
>
> "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
> - Mike Godwin, first article about the topic in the Google archives,
> Message-ID <***@eff.org>, 18 Aug 1991
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug18.215029.19421%40eff.org
>
> :Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
> longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
> approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
> this occurs, that 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.
> - The Jargon File (http://www.ccil.org/jargon/)
>
> Hitler, Nazis, nazis, and net.cops:
> Warning: now that this FAQ has mentioned Hitler and Nazis, UseNet Rule #4
> (also known as Godwin's Rule, after Mike Godwin of the EFF, sci.crypt, and
> comp.org.eff.talk, a sometime foe of David Sternlight (q.v.) [even though it
> was apparently in use, by Richard Sexton {q.v.} among others, before Mike's
> 1988 (?) net.advent; the "Godwin's" part seems to stem from "Rich Rosen's
> Rules of Net.Debate, which I don't have a copy of]) says it will be coming to
> an irrelevant and off-topic end soon. Just as there will always be newbies
> ("It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the net" - response to a 1993 wave
> of delphi.com postings on a.f.u), there will always be people who see the net
> and are repulsed because there's stuff there they don't want to see - so they
> set out to make sure noone else can, either. They invariably fail, because
> there are no net.cops to enforce any such rules on UseNet; in the course of
> the heated flamewar that usually follows, things escalate until either Hitler
> or Nazis (or both) put in an appearance, at which point the thread has
> officially lost all relevance. People scream at each other a bit more, then
> give up and go home. Bleah. "Keep your brains up top; don't be a net.cop."
> This has mutated, in true UseNet fashion, to encompass *any* continuing
> thread; if you mention Hitler or Nazis out of the blue, the thread is sure to
> die irrelevantly soon (and, incidentally, you've lost the argument, whatever
> it was)... and every continuing thread on UseNet *must* contain such a
> reference sooner or later. Invoking Rule #4 deliberately in hopes of ending
> a thread, however, is doomed to failure (Quirk's Exception)...
>
> UseNet Rules #n:
> No firm info at the present time is available on just what the other UseNet
> Rules #n are. However, at a guess, they include:
> --
> Rule #nonumber: There are no hard-and-fast Rules on UseNet, only Guidelines,
> which are more or less strictly enforced (and differ) from group to group;
> this is why it's generally wise to read any group for a bit before ever
> posting to it.
> Rule #0: *There* *is* *no* *C*b*l*. There *is*, however, a net-wide
> conspiracy designed solely to lead Dave Hayes (q.v.) to believe that there
> is a C*b*l.
> Corollary: *There* *are* *no* *pods*.
> Rule #9: It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.
> Dave Fischer's Extension: 1993 was The Year September Never Ended [so far,
> there doesn't seem to be much evidence he's wrong...]
> Rule #17: Go not to UseNet for counsel, for they will say both `No' and
> `Yes' and `Try another newsgroup'.
> Rule #2 (John Gilmore): "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes
> around it."
> Rule #108 (from the soc.motss FAQ): "What will happen to me if I read
> soc.motss?" "In general, nothing. (You may be informed or infuriated, of
> course; but that's a standard Usenet hazard.)"
> Rule #666: Old alt groups never die. They don't fade away nicely, either.
> Rule #7-B: There is no topic so thoroughly covered that noone will ever
> bring it up again.
> Rule #90120: Applying your standards to someone else's post *will* result
> in a flamewar.
> Rule #1: Spellling and grammer counts. So do grace, wit, and a sense of
> humor (the latter two are different), as well as a willingness to meet
> odd people, but these are lesser considerations.
> Rule #x^2: FAQs are asked frequently. Get used to them.
> Rule #29: no rational discourse can happen in a thread cross-posted to
> more than two newsgroups.
> rule #6 (Eddie Saxe): don't post to misc.test unless you understand the
> consequences.
> Rule #547 (Arne Adolfsen): When people know they're wrong they resort to ad
> hominems.
> Rule #37 (Faisal Nameer Jawdat): Read the thread from the beginning, or else.
> Rule #5 (Reimer's Reason): Nobody ever ignores what they should ignore on
> Usenet.
> Rule $19.99 (Brad `Squid' Shapcott): The Internet *isn't* *free*. It just has
> an economy that makes no sense to capitalism.
> Rule #3 ("Why 3?" "Because we felt like it"): For every opinion there is at
> least one equally loud and opposing opinion; sometimes stated as:
> Rule #27 (Gary Lewandowski): "In cyberspace, *everyone* can hear you scream."
> And for completeness' sake:
>
> Rule #4: (Godwin's Rule) Any off-topic mention of Hitler or Nazis will cause
> the thread it is mentioned in to an irrelevant and off-topic end very soon;
> every thread on UseNet has a constantly-increasing probability to contain
> such a mention.
> Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is
> ineffectual.
> Case's Corollary: If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the
> probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.
> - net.legends FAQ (http://wiki.killfile.org/mirror/net.legends)
>
>
>
> Appendix B: Addendums, Commentary, and Miscellaneous
>
> 1. Bentsen's Defense
>
> For some, there is another way around Godwin's Law:
>
> "Not this time. I know Mike Godwin. Mike Godwin is a friend of mine.
> Senator, you're no Mike Godwin."
>
> This, of course, only applies to friends of Mike Godwin. The
> originator of this rule, Earl Cooley III (***@io.com), is one of those
> people. If you have to ask, you don't apply. I don't apply, so don't
> feel bad.
>
> Note that this was named after Senator Lloyd Bentsen's "You're
> no Jack Kennedy" line from the 1988 vice-presidential debates. And the
> original usage can be found in <***@news.supernews.com>:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=***@news.supernews.com
>
>
> 2. Godwin's Commentary
>
> Godwin actually wrote a short article for Wired Magazine on the
> Law back in 1994:
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
>
> The article is actually more about the power and danger of memes
> (thought-viruses) than about Godwin's Law itself, but it's worthwhile
> reading for anybody who actually got this far into the FAQ.
>
>
> 3. Author's Note on the Holocaust
>
> Over the years, I have received several emails regarding this FAQ
> regarding the Holocaust itself, either disputing the holocaust or the
> numbers listed in this FAQ. I'd just like to make it clear that I don't
> have any particular desire to debate these points; this FAQ is meant to
> point out and explain a quirk of human nature, not to codify the history
> of World War II.
>
>
> 4. Additional Corollaries
>
> There have been many additional corollaries and otherwise related
> rules created since the net.legends FAQ codified them, and/or missed in
> that FAQ. Those that have been brought to the author's attention:
>
> Stead's Law (named for Lew Stead of alt.pagan fame):
> Any discussion between more than 2 Pagans will eventually come around
> to Christianity.
> - Reported by Donal Brewich <***@brewich.com>
> - More information regarding its history would be appreciated
>



--


YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>

SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.

<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
%
2018-08-01 02:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 6:17 PM, dolf wrote:
> Would someone please tell that neo-Nazi ***@ckwit Tim Skirvin
> <***@killfile.org> that if he is going to keep posting the
> propagandist ***@t known as “Godwin's Law FAQ” that he ought to have
> INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY to recognise that such particular rhetorical device
> is common enough to have its own name, *REDUCTIO* *AD* *HITLERUM*.
>
> Subject: Re: — REDUCTIO AD TRUMPIUM
>
> ------------ Begin Message ------------
> Group: aus.politics
> MsgID: <Itidnb8-wuTfOcHGnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>
>
> REDUCTIO AD TRUMPIUM can be deployed as a fine art form within poetic
> juxtaposition to cast an aspersion upon the observer such as by the
> phrases:
>
> AS THEY ROT SOIL SODDEN
>
> and
>
> YOU ROTTEN SOD
>
> — TIME DIDN’T DENY —
>
> “YE BE NOT
> FORGOTTEN.
> AS THEY ROT.
> SOIL SODDEN.
>
> WE REMEMBER.
> OF VALOUR BORN.
> FAITHFUL FOREVER.
> ER EVE NOR MORN.”
>
> [ANZAC Centennial 25 April 2018]
>
> <http://www.grapple369.com/docs/Time%20Didn%27t%20Deny%2020180425.pdf>
>
> dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Such is an example of *CAUSERIE* as informal essay on REDUCTIO AD TRUMPIUM
>
> noun
> 1. an informal talk or chat.
> 2. a short, informal essay, article, etc.
> 3. Word for the day of 29 July 2018; Courtesy www.dictionary.com
>
> Quotes
> I was once booked by my manager to give a causerie in the drawing-room of a
> New York millionaire.
>
>
> — *BLINKERED* DEVOTIONS —
>
> “IF I KNOW GOOD.
> AND I KNOW EVIL.
> BE IT UNDERSTOOD.
> I AIN’T NO DEVIL.
>
> WELL KISS MY RING.
> YOU ROTTEN SOD.
> ‘N MOUTH MY DING.
> YOU AIN’T NO GOD.”
>
> That poem is an example of Intellectual capacity because it computes to
> #312 / #333 as identical to what I was thinking...
>
> dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It was an example of *REDUCTIO* *AD* *TRUMPIUM*.
>
> That within logic, juxtaposition is a logical fallacy on the part of the
> observer, where two items placed next to each other imply a correlation,
> when none is actually claimed
>
> The statement: “Much of what you have conveyed is delusional and grounded
> upon facts.”
>
> And such ought to have read: “Much of what you have conveyed is delusional
> and *NOT* grounded upon facts.”
>
> This particular rhetorical device is common enough to have its own name
> which we call *REDUCTIO* *AD* *TRUMPIUM* as there is a historical precedent
> for doing so...
>
> WOULD V’s WOULDN’T
>
> Coined by Leo Strauss in 1951, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from
> the term used in logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).
>
> According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad
> misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one
> of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments,
> because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler
> and Nazism have been condemned in the modern world.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum>
>
> Daniel60 <***@eternal-september.org> wrote:
> MattB wrote on 28/07/2018 7:19 AM:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 05:39:37 +1000, dolf <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I do not practice asceticism however I do have a regard for Hasidic
> Jewish religious belief.
>
> I treat women with the utmost dignity, respect and equality since
> BOEK is my mother’s name.
>
> Much of what you have conveyed is delusional and *NOT* grounded upon
> facts.
>
> I'm glad you don't as religious fundies are crazy and often true
> evil.
>
> Gee Whiz!! Isn't it, sort of, contradictory to suggest something is
> "delusional" and "grounded upon facts"??
>
>
> Piaget writes that within logic, juxtaposition is a logical fallacy on the
> part of the observer, where two items placed next to each other imply a
> correlation, when none is actually claimed. For example, an illustration of
> a politician and Adolf Hitler on the same page would imply that the
> politician had a common ideology with Hitler. Similarly, saying "Hitler was
> in favour of #231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL, and so are you" would have the
> same effect.
>
> This particular rhetorical device is common enough to have its own name,
> *REDUCTIO* *AD* *HITLERUM*.
>
>
>
> Tim Skirvin <***@killfile.org> wrote:
>> Archive-name: usenet/legends/godwin
>> Posting-Frequency: monthly
>> Last-Modified: October 7, 2003
>> Version: 1.15
>> URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin
>> Maintainer: ***@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>>
>> Godwin's Law FAQ
>> -or-
>> "How to post about Nazis and get away with it"
>>
>> One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention
>> Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion
>> you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a
>> long and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely wrong. This FAQ
>> is an attempt to set straight as much of the history and meaning of Godwin's
>> Law as possible, and hopefully encourage users to invoke it a bit more
>> sparingly. Of course, knowing Usenet, it won't do an ounce of good...
>>
>>
>> [Standard Disclaimers: this document assumes you have some basic knowledge
>> of Usenet; if you don't, go check out news.announce.newusers for a while to
>> gain said knowledge. Misuse of the information contained within this FAQ
>> is not the responsibility of the author (though he's pretty confused exactly
>> how you could misuse this information). Copyright 1999-2002, Tim Skirvin,
>> all rights reserved, <FISH><, fnord, furrfu.]
>>
>>
>> I. The Basics
>> 1. What is Godwin's Law?
>>
>> Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
>> (***@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
>> the Jargon File:
>>
>> As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
>> involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
>>
>>
>> 2. What does it mean?
>>
>> It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
>> goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
>> approach one.
>>
>>
>> 3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
>>
>> Aah, now *there's* the real question.
>>
>> In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
>> years or so, the Nazis were a German political party led by Adolf Hitler
>> that slaughtered upwards of ten million people that didn't meet their
>> standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world
>> in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of
>> people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
>> them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
>>
>> As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
>> more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
>> insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
>> notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
>> the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
>> Nazi comparison.
>>
>>
>> 4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
>>
>> The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
>> thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
>> mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
>> become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
>>
>> So, what this means in practical terms:
>>
>> o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
>> wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
>> insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
>> o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
>> was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
>> the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
>> o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
>> going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
>> a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
>> other side.
>>
>>
>> 5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?
>>
>> Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
>> something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
>> happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
>> flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
>> is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
>>
>>
>> II. What does it mean?
>> 1. Didn't we already spend the last section talking about this?
>>
>> Well, yeah, but people don't seem to get the point...
>>
>>
>> 2. What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
>>
>> Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that
>> your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion.
>> Them's the breaks.
>>
>> That isn't to say, of course, that you can't talk about Nazis and
>> such on Usenet - this *is* Usenet, after all, where virtually every
>> conversation that goes on is fairly ludicrous in the first place. It's
>> just going to take you a lot more effort to find real information out of
>> there and to avoid getting yourself off on side-threads - which you'll
>> eventually do regardless, but you can try to put it off.
>>
>> This also applies if a thread mutates into an actual discussion of
>> Nazis, of course.
>>
>>
>> 3. What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?
>>
>> Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting
>> Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate. Still, trying
>> to invoke Godwin's Law near a Neo-Nazi isn't really a good idea because
>> it's not terribly original and they'll probably get off on it anyway.
>> Just ignore them and occasionally publish a FAQ detailing what actually
>> happened during the Holocaust and such; arguing probably isn't going to
>> help you.
>>
>>
>> 4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?
>>
>> In the proper kind of flamewar, Godwin's Law can be used as a
>> gambit - how can you force your opponent to invoke the Law? Actually
>> teaching these skills is tough, of course, and is best done through
>> experience. Experience with chess and alt.flame are recommended.
>>
>>
>> 5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
>>
>> The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
>> and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
>> because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
>> don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
>> an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
>> I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
>> post is unnecessary.
>>
>>
>> 6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
>>
>> Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
>> thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
>> virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
>> the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (***@swcp.com):
>>
>> Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
>> "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
>>
>> Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
>>
>>
>> 7. Does Godwin's Law apply in the real world?
>>
>> Actually, yeah, but usually discussions in Real Life end by
>> somebody wandering off in disgust before it can be invoked.
>>
>>
>> 8. Are there any topics that lead directly to Godwin Invocations?
>>
>> Well, yeah. Of course. Case's Corollary to the Law states "if
>> the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi
>> comparison being made becomes equal to one" - but that's just an old list.
>> Abortion and gun control debates always lead to Nazi comparisons; talk
>> with a Libertarian for more than a few hours and he'll almost certainly
>> bring up Nazis; book-burning is pretty much considered a sub-topic of
>> Nazism at this point. Hell, talk about anything politically related and
>> you'll eventually get there.
>>
>> If you're really bored, a fun game to play is Six Degrees of Godwin.
>> Take a topic - any topic - and see how quickly you can relate it to Nazis
>> using legitimate topic drift methods. For example: a discussion about
>> computers will eventually lead to discussions of keyboards and which are
>> best, followed by a lot of complaining about the Windows key on 104-key
>> keyboards, leading to complaints about Microsoft, forcing the standard
>> MS-vs-government flamewar that I'm sure you're all aware of, leading to
>> attacks on Microsoft's "fascist" tactics by one side or another, which
>> will force the other side to start talking about the differences between
>> fascism, capitalism, and, of course, Nazism! The fun never stops!
>>
>>
>>
>> Appendix A: The Many Forms of Godwin's Law
>>
>> "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the
>> participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."
>> - Richard Sexton (http://www.vrx.net/richard/) stating what would later
>> be known as Godwin's Law, Message-ID <***@gryphon.COM>, 16 Oct 1989
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21000%40gryphon.COM&output=gplain
>>
>> "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
>> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
>> - Mike Godwin, first article about the topic in the Google archives,
>> Message-ID <***@eff.org>, 18 Aug 1991
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug18.215029.19421%40eff.org
>>
>> :Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
>> longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
>> approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
>> this occurs, that 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.
>> - The Jargon File (http://www.ccil.org/jargon/)
>>
>> Hitler, Nazis, nazis, and net.cops:
>> Warning: now that this FAQ has mentioned Hitler and Nazis, UseNet Rule #4
>> (also known as Godwin's Rule, after Mike Godwin of the EFF, sci.crypt, and
>> comp.org.eff.talk, a sometime foe of David Sternlight (q.v.) [even though it
>> was apparently in use, by Richard Sexton {q.v.} among others, before Mike's
>> 1988 (?) net.advent; the "Godwin's" part seems to stem from "Rich Rosen's
>> Rules of Net.Debate, which I don't have a copy of]) says it will be coming to
>> an irrelevant and off-topic end soon. Just as there will always be newbies
>> ("It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the net" - response to a 1993 wave
>> of delphi.com postings on a.f.u), there will always be people who see the net
>> and are repulsed because there's stuff there they don't want to see - so they
>> set out to make sure noone else can, either. They invariably fail, because
>> there are no net.cops to enforce any such rules on UseNet; in the course of
>> the heated flamewar that usually follows, things escalate until either Hitler
>> or Nazis (or both) put in an appearance, at which point the thread has
>> officially lost all relevance. People scream at each other a bit more, then
>> give up and go home. Bleah. "Keep your brains up top; don't be a net.cop."
>> This has mutated, in true UseNet fashion, to encompass *any* continuing
>> thread; if you mention Hitler or Nazis out of the blue, the thread is sure to
>> die irrelevantly soon (and, incidentally, you've lost the argument, whatever
>> it was)... and every continuing thread on UseNet *must* contain such a
>> reference sooner or later. Invoking Rule #4 deliberately in hopes of ending
>> a thread, however, is doomed to failure (Quirk's Exception)...
>>
>> UseNet Rules #n:
>> No firm info at the present time is available on just what the other UseNet
>> Rules #n are. However, at a guess, they include:
>> --
>> Rule #nonumber: There are no hard-and-fast Rules on UseNet, only Guidelines,
>> which are more or less strictly enforced (and differ) from group to group;
>> this is why it's generally wise to read any group for a bit before ever
>> posting to it.
>> Rule #0: *There* *is* *no* *C*b*l*. There *is*, however, a net-wide
>> conspiracy designed solely to lead Dave Hayes (q.v.) to believe that there
>> is a C*b*l.
>> Corollary: *There* *are* *no* *pods*.
>> Rule #9: It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.
>> Dave Fischer's Extension: 1993 was The Year September Never Ended [so far,
>> there doesn't seem to be much evidence he's wrong...]
>> Rule #17: Go not to UseNet for counsel, for they will say both `No' and
>> `Yes' and `Try another newsgroup'.
>> Rule #2 (John Gilmore): "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes
>> around it."
>> Rule #108 (from the soc.motss FAQ): "What will happen to me if I read
>> soc.motss?" "In general, nothing. (You may be informed or infuriated, of
>> course; but that's a standard Usenet hazard.)"
>> Rule #666: Old alt groups never die. They don't fade away nicely, either.
>> Rule #7-B: There is no topic so thoroughly covered that noone will ever
>> bring it up again.
>> Rule #90120: Applying your standards to someone else's post *will* result
>> in a flamewar.
>> Rule #1: Spellling and grammer counts. So do grace, wit, and a sense of
>> humor (the latter two are different), as well as a willingness to meet
>> odd people, but these are lesser considerations.
>> Rule #x^2: FAQs are asked frequently. Get used to them.
>> Rule #29: no rational discourse can happen in a thread cross-posted to
>> more than two newsgroups.
>> rule #6 (Eddie Saxe): don't post to misc.test unless you understand the
>> consequences.
>> Rule #547 (Arne Adolfsen): When people know they're wrong they resort to ad
>> hominems.
>> Rule #37 (Faisal Nameer Jawdat): Read the thread from the beginning, or else.
>> Rule #5 (Reimer's Reason): Nobody ever ignores what they should ignore on
>> Usenet.
>> Rule $19.99 (Brad `Squid' Shapcott): The Internet *isn't* *free*. It just has
>> an economy that makes no sense to capitalism.
>> Rule #3 ("Why 3?" "Because we felt like it"): For every opinion there is at
>> least one equally loud and opposing opinion; sometimes stated as:
>> Rule #27 (Gary Lewandowski): "In cyberspace, *everyone* can hear you scream."
>> And for completeness' sake:
>>
>> Rule #4: (Godwin's Rule) Any off-topic mention of Hitler or Nazis will cause
>> the thread it is mentioned in to an irrelevant and off-topic end very soon;
>> every thread on UseNet has a constantly-increasing probability to contain
>> such a mention.
>> Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is
>> ineffectual.
>> Case's Corollary: If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the
>> probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.
>> - net.legends FAQ (http://wiki.killfile.org/mirror/net.legends)
>>
>>
>>
>> Appendix B: Addendums, Commentary, and Miscellaneous
>>
>> 1. Bentsen's Defense
>>
>> For some, there is another way around Godwin's Law:
>>
>> "Not this time. I know Mike Godwin. Mike Godwin is a friend of mine.
>> Senator, you're no Mike Godwin."
>>
>> This, of course, only applies to friends of Mike Godwin. The
>> originator of this rule, Earl Cooley III (***@io.com), is one of those
>> people. If you have to ask, you don't apply. I don't apply, so don't
>> feel bad.
>>
>> Note that this was named after Senator Lloyd Bentsen's "You're
>> no Jack Kennedy" line from the 1988 vice-presidential debates. And the
>> original usage can be found in <***@news.supernews.com>:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=***@news.supernews.com
>>
>>
>> 2. Godwin's Commentary
>>
>> Godwin actually wrote a short article for Wired Magazine on the
>> Law back in 1994:
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
>>
>> The article is actually more about the power and danger of memes
>> (thought-viruses) than about Godwin's Law itself, but it's worthwhile
>> reading for anybody who actually got this far into the FAQ.
>>
>>
>> 3. Author's Note on the Holocaust
>>
>> Over the years, I have received several emails regarding this FAQ
>> regarding the Holocaust itself, either disputing the holocaust or the
>> numbers listed in this FAQ. I'd just like to make it clear that I don't
>> have any particular desire to debate these points; this FAQ is meant to
>> point out and explain a quirk of human nature, not to codify the history
>> of World War II.
>>
>>
>> 4. Additional Corollaries
>>
>> There have been many additional corollaries and otherwise related
>> rules created since the net.legends FAQ codified them, and/or missed in
>> that FAQ. Those that have been brought to the author's attention:
>>
>> Stead's Law (named for Lew Stead of alt.pagan fame):
>> Any discussion between more than 2 Pagans will eventually come around
>> to Christianity.
>> - Reported by Donal Brewich <***@brewich.com>
>> - More information regarding its history would be appreciated
>>
>
>
>
titillating your anus as it summits
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2018-08-01 15:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dolf, you are one silly shit.
LOL
dolf
2018-08-01 19:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Don’t go all feral on me princeSS 👸 arsewipe.

The shocking reality is that the your constitution is shaken to the core
and you don’t believe in democracy

- dolf

Colonel Edmund J. Burke <***@bigass-babes.com> wrote:
> Dolf, you are one silly shit.
> LOL
>
>
>

— NOAM CHOMSKY: RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE ISN’T INFLUENCING US ELECTIONS BUT
ISRAEL DEFINITELY IS

(c) 2018 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 1 August, 2018

JOHN VIBES (FREE THOUGHT PROJECT) ON 31 JULY 2018: “While Americans obsess
over alleged ‘Russian hacking,’ Noam Chomsky questions why political
influence from Israel is being ignored.”

<https://thefreethoughtproject.com/noam-chomsky-israil-influence-meddling/>

MANUFACTURING CONSENT: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a book
written by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, in which the authors propose
that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful
ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda
function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and
self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda
model of communication. The title derives from the phrase "the manufacture
of consent," employed in the book Public Opinion (1922), by Walter Lippmann
(1889–1974).

The book was first published in 1988 and was revised 20 years later to take
account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. There has
been debate about how the internet has changed the public's access to
information since 1988.
[<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent>

Can Noam Chomsky as a cunning linguist answer the question on whether this
#288 - UMBRA {

H6525@{
   @1: Sup: 6 (#6); Ego: 6 (#6),
   @2: Sup: 5 (#11); Ego: 80 (#86),
   @3: Sup: 43 (#54); Ego: 38 (#124),
   @4: Sup: 51 (#105); Ego: 8 (#132),
   @5: Sup: 10 (#115); Ego: 40 (#172),
   Male: #115; Feme: #172
} // #334

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #288 % #41 = #1 - To Guide with Names, Reason's Realisation;
I-Ching: H58 - Joy, Open, Lake; Tetra: 24 - Joy;

THOTH MEASURE: #1 - Oh thou of long strides, who makest thine appearance in
Annu; *I* *AM* *NOT* *A* *DOER* *OF* *WRONG*.

    #VIRTUE: If it is Center (no. #1), then yang begins.
    #TOOLS: With Center (no. #1), it begins.
    #POSITION: If it is Response (no. #41), then yin is born.
    #TIME: With Full Circle (no. #2), it wheels back.
    #CANON: #45

#334 as [#6, #80, #200, #8, #40] = perach (H6525): {UMBRA: #10 as #288 %
#41 = #1} 1) bud, sprout

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #224 % #41 = #19 - Argument for Ethical Anarchism, Returning to
Simplicity; I-Ching: H57 - Compliance, Gentle Penetration/Wind, Ground,
Calculations; Tetra: 58 - Gathering In;

H1870@{
   @1: Sup: 40 (#40); Ego: 40 (#40),
   @2: Sup: 44 (#84); Ego: 4 (#44),
   @3: Sup: 1 (#85); Ego: 38 (#82),
   @4: Sup: 21 (#106); Ego: 20 (#102),
   @5: Sup: 31 (#137); Ego: 10 (#112),
   @6: Sup: 51 (#188); Ego: 20 (#132),
   @7: Sup: 10 (#198); Ego: 40 (#172),
   Male: #198; Feme: #172
} // #334

THOTH MEASURE: #19 - Oh Uammetu, who makest thine appearance at the Block;
*I* *COMMIT* *NOT* *ADULTERY* *WITH* *ANOTHER'S* *WIFE*.

    #VIRTUE: Following (no. #19) means dispersing, but
    #TOOLS: Massing (no. #59) means assembling.
    #POSITION: With Ease (no. #23), the level and smooth, but
    #TIME: With Difficulties (no. #79), the going up and down.
    #CANON: #180

#334 as [#40, #4, #200, #20, #10, #20, #40] = derek (H1870): {UMBRA: #1 as
#224 % #41 = #19} 1) way, road, distance, journey, manner; 1a) road, way,
path; 1b) journey; 1c) direction; 1d) manner, habit, way; 1e) of course of
life (fig.); 1f) of moral character (fig.)

} of political interference has an anchor within #231 - JUXTAPOSITION
CONTROL or is it rooted at the ONTIC % #41 as CANONICAL level?

Nous: #56
Time:
Date: 2018.8.1
Torah: [#40, #30, #5]@{
@1: Sup: 40 (#40); Ego: 40 (#40),
@2: Sup: 70 (#110); Ego: 30 (#70),
@3: Sup: 75 (#185); Ego: 5 (#75),
Male: #185; Feme: #75
} // #75

Dao: Abstruse Mysterious Virtuosity
Tetra: #46 - Enlargement
I-Ching: H55 - Abundance, Abounding, Fullness

Latin: Multus {God who delivers from the evil} Alt: Hyaiel {God and Man
Exist} {

1. PROTECTS AGAINST WEAPONS & PERILS OF TRAVEL
2. MEDICINAL HERBS
3. WATER
4. Chumis
}

Solar Eclipse: 1 August 2008 (AEST)

Judah {Praise of the Lord; confession}

Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#334 / #311} / HETEROS {#311 / #259} / TORAH {#303 /
#255}

<http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:4,col:4,nous:56&idea:{m,162}&idea:{f,165}&idea:{m,334}&idea:{f,311}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>

***@zen: 5, row: 4, col: 4, nous: 56 [Date: 2018.8.1, Time: (none),
Super: #334 / #3 - Political Prescriptions, Quietude; I-Ching: H46 -
Climbing, Moving/Pushing Upward, Ascending; Tetra: 8 - Opposition, Ego:
#311 / #56 - Abstruse Mysterious Virtuosity; I-Ching: H55 - Abundance,
Abounding, Fullness; Tetra: 46 - Enlargement]

-- APPLE RELISH --

"GUILTY AS SIN,
NOT REALLY NICE.
OVERTAKE TIME.
TRUTH'S DEVICE.
HEAR IT RHYME
OUR NANO IS IN."

NANO-PROBE@{
@1: Sup: 18 (#18); Ego: 13 (#13),
@2: Sup: 23 (#41); Ego: 48 (#61),
@3: Sup: 59 (#100); Ego: 18 (#79),
@4: Sup: 47 (#147); Ego: 63 (#142),
@5: Sup: 69 (#216); Ego: 28 (#170),
@6: Sup: 23 (#239); Ego: 22 (#192),
@7: Sup: 50 (#289); Ego: 50 (#242),
Male: #289; Feme: #242
}

<http://www.grapple369.com/?idea:{289}&idea:{242}>

Het lijkt erop dat u onderworpen bent aan een gemeenschappelijke stroom
semantiek als het lexicon van opportunisme:

Verzet is zinloos - you will be assimilated!

YOUTUBE: "The Borg Assimilation"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkasJZZxRU0>

H4032@{
   @1: Sup: 40 (#40); Ego: 40 (#40),
   @2: Sup: 80 (#120); Ego: 40 (#80),
   @3: Sup: 2 (#122); Ego: 3 (#83),
   @4: Sup: 8 (#130); Ego: 6 (#89),
   @5: Sup: 46 (#176); Ego: 38 (#127),
   Male: #176; Feme: #127
} // #289

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #249 % #41 = #3 - Political Prescriptions, Quietude; I-Ching: H46 -
Climbing, Moving/Pushing Upward, Ascending; Tetra: 8 - Opposition;

THOTH MEASURE: #3 - Oh thou of the Nose, who makest thine appearance at
Chemunnu; *I* *AM* *NOT* *EVIL* *MINDED*.

    #VIRTUE: With Mired (no. #3), great woe.
    #TOOLS: With Encounters (no. #43), small desire.
    #POSITION: The ways of Purity (no. #37) and ...
    #TIME: Pattern (no. #47) where some are simple and some are complex?
    #CANON: #130

#289 as [#40, #40, #3, #6, #200] = magowr (H4032): {UMBRA: #6 as #249 % #41
= #3} 1) *FEAR*, terror

ABSTRACT CONCEPTUAL POSTULATE:
Consensus {ie. point to point within a circumscribed opportunity} of
agreement between SOVEREIGN STATES by deployment of a real-time function()
which may then become an effective DETERMINATION process upon the
IMMATERIAL / INCORPOREAL REALM by utilising each of the ONTIC % #41
CANONICAL values as OBLIGANS descriptors within the TELOS HIERARCHY which
will then be steeped throughout the INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTUS (ie.
VOLUNTARY WILL) spectrum of CATEGORIES OF UNDERSTANDING within the NOUMENON
paradigm itself.

As a work in progress (which may take some further years of thoughtful
consideration) being informal research notation only, I’ll write this
syncretism up a little later today once I have appraised each of the
philosophical concepts of what was earlier summarily stated:

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Circle.jpeg>

[IMAGE: Consensus {ie. point to point within a circumscribed opportunity}
of agreement between SOVEREIGN STATES as an effective DETERMINATION process
upon the IMMATERIAL / INCORPOREAL REALM]

OBLIGANS (noun):
1) obliging, making liable.
2) making guilty. <-- *DETERMINATION* *OF* *GUILT*
3) mortgaging, pawning.
4) restraining, impeding.

ETYMOLOGY:
Present active participle of obligō (“bind in obligation”)

I want to make one more informal research statement on the capacity to
deploy the OBLIGANS {*DETERMINATION* *OF* *GUILT*} as a PROBABILITY
FUNCTION {eg: VIRTUE (+/-); TOOLS (+/-); POSITION (+/-); TIME (+/-)} which
is not my area of expertise but none the less there is no harm in making a
hypothetical postulate for the purposes of further consideration as to
there being any relative merit.

3: {
THOTH: "Oh thou of the Nose, who makest thine appearance at Chemunnu; I am
not evil minded.",
VIRTUE: [3 ,"With Mired (no. #3), great woe."],
TOOLS: [43 ,"With Encounters (no. #43), small desire."],
POSITION: [37 ,"The ways of Purity (no. #37) and ..."],
TIME: [47 ,"Pattern (no. #47) where some are simple and some are
complex?"],
CANON: 130,
ANKH: 0
},

That such real-time function() may become an effective DETERMINATION
process upon the IMMATERIAL / INCORPOREAL REALM by deploying each of the
CANONICAL values as a TELOS HIERARCHY which will then bleed throughout all
the spectrum of CATEGORIES OF UNDERSTANDING within the NOUMENON paradigm.

<http://www.grapple369.com/?telos:237>

At the superficial level if I wanted to determine #237 - USE OF FORCE
association with a CANONICAL VALUE: #130:

WATCH0: 5.3.3.7.0@{
@1: Sup: 45 (#45); Ego: 45 (#45),
@2: Sup: 35 (#80); Ego: 71 (#116),
@3: Sup: 11 (#91); Ego: 57 (#173),
@4: Sup: 39 (#130 *** ONTIC VALUE: *I* *AM* *NOT* *EVIL* *MINDED*);
Ego: 28 (#201),
@5: Sup: 46 (#176); Ego: 7 (#208),
@6: Sup: 26 (#202); Ego: 61 (#269),
@7: Sup: 35 (#237 *** *USE* *OF* *FORCE*); Ego: 9 (#278),
@8: Sup: 81 (#318); Ego: 46 (#324),
@9: Sup: 79 (#397); Ego: 79 (#403),
Male: #397; Feme: #403
}

Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#397 / #403} / HETEROS {#361 / #385} / TORAH {#373 /
#391}

<http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:3,col:3,nous:7&idea:{m,176}&idea:{f,208}&idea:{m,397}&idea:{f,403}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>

***@zen: 5, row: 3, col: 3, nous: 7 [Date: 2018.6.15, Time: (none),
Super: #237 / #46 - Guiding Contentment, Moderation of Desire; I-Ching: H1
- Pure Yang, Creative Principle/Heaven, Force, Strong action, The key, God;
Tetra: 37 - Purity, Ego: #278 / #7 - Intentional Reversal, Dimming
Radiance; I-Ching: H12 - Obstruction, Stagnation, Selfish persons; Tetra:
56 - Closed Mouth]

H1870@{
   @1: Sup: 2 (#2); Ego: 2 (#2),
   @2: Sup: 6 (#8); Ego: 4 (#6),
   @3: Sup: 44 (#52); Ego: 38 (#44),
   @4: Sup: 64 (#116); Ego: 20 (#64),
   @5: Sup: 74 (#190); Ego: 10 (#74),
   @6: Sup: 80 (#270); Ego: 6 (#80),
   Male: #270; Feme: #80
} // #242

#242 as [#2, #4, #200, #20, #10, #6] = derek (H1870): {UMBRA: #10 as #242 %
#41 = #37} 1) way, road, distance, journey, manner; 1a) road, way, path;
1b) journey; 1c) direction; 1d) manner, habit, way; 1e) of course of life
(fig.); 1f) of moral character (fig.)

H1697@{
   @1: Sup: 6 (#6); Ego: 6 (#6),
   @2: Sup: 10 (#16); Ego: 4 (#10),
   @3: Sup: 12 (#28); Ego: 2 (#12),
   @4: Sup: 50 (#78); Ego: 38 (#50),
   @5: Sup: 60 (#138); Ego: 10 (#60),
   @6: Sup: 74 (#212); Ego: 14 (#74),
   Male: #212; Feme: #74
} // #242

#242 as [#6, #4, #2, #200, #10, #500] = dabar (H1697): {UMBRA: #15 as #242
% #41 = #37} 1) speech, word, speaking, thing; 1a) speech; 1b) saying,
utterance; 1c) word, words; 1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case,
something, manner (by extension)

H3384@{
   @1: Sup: 10 (#10); Ego: 10 (#10),
   @2: Sup: 16 (#26); Ego: 6 (#16),
   @3: Sup: 54 (#80); Ego: 38 (#54),
   @4: Sup: 60 (#140); Ego: 6 (#60),
   @5: Sup: 74 (#214); Ego: 14 (#74),
   Male: #214; Feme: #74
} // #242

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #242 % #41 = #37 - Non-Deeming Action, Government Administration;
I-Ching: H40 - Release, Deliverance, Taking-Apart, Untangled; Tetra: 21 -
Release;

THOTH MEASURE: #37 - Oh Striker, who makest thine appearance in Heaven; *I*
*AM* *NOT* *ONE* *OF* *LOUD* *VOICE*.

    #VIRTUE: Purity (no. #37) means the Way of the ruler.
    #TOOLS: Compliance (no. #77) means the subject’s preservation.
    #POSITION: With Penetration (no. #14), a sharp advance.
    #TIME: With Dimming (no. #68), an impeded walk.
    #CANON: #196

#242 as [#10, #6, #200, #6, #500] = yarah (H3384): {UMBRA: #11 as #242 %
#41 = #37} 1) to throw, shoot, cast, pour; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to throw, cast;
1a2) to cast, lay, set; 1a3) to shoot arrows; 1a4) to throw water, rain;
1b) (Niphal) to be shot; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) to throw, cast; 1c2) to shoot;
1c3) to point out, show; 1c4) to direct, teach, instruct; 1c5) to throw
water, rain

Does he consider that a REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE INHIBITOR stratagem is the
best neutralisation as HYPOSTASIS {septet space/time dynamic} approach
against such a disease?

<https://www.facebook.com/daveclayden1>

DAVE CLAYTON @ 0619 HOURS ON 1 AUGUST 2018: "That copyright thing makes you
look so serious."

DOLF @ 0624 HOURS ON 1 AUGUST 2018: "You could not even calculate the
monetary value within a SAPIENT ECONOMY.

My prudent and informed comment has been censored as prejudice by SBS as
contemptuous wilful damage to my INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY only because my
approach to news and media is better to theirs.

NOTE: "Great bucket of water scene from "DOCTOR DOCTOR" on NINE'S TODAY
thereafter @ 0747 HOURS ...

<https://www.9now.com.au/today/2018/clip-cjka8z6yn003s0hnqgm83mj2h>

I was right on with my DAO for the DAY as my PRE-QUEUE from 16 JUNE
2017..."

I will not countenance their culture of disrespect to our commonwealth and
it’s laws and therefore I will delete my comment.

You neo Nazis are to have no association with my intellectual property.

-- STRAWBERRIES --

"CALIGULA'S ARMY MARCHES,
ALL ACROSS THE LAND.
THE TRIUMPHANT ARCHES.
WITH BASKETS IN HAND.

LIKE A LITTLE SMURF,
THEY'RE HARD TO FIND.
FROM MOUNT TO SURF.
IT'S SUCH A GRIND.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
TIME IS MONEY.
IT'S OFF TO TRUMP TOWER.
TRY NOT TO BE FUNNY.

SPIT THE DUMMY.
SO MUCH TO COUNT.
PEE A PENNY.
MORE TO MOUNT."

"And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this
once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not
destroy [it] for ten's sake." [Genesis 18:32 (KJV)]

DOLF: "I would not find 10 among you...

And shake the dust off my feet.

Here pussy pussy {ie. the 'boy-pussy' was a smaller version of the
cat-o-nine-tails as known to being a colonial authoritative punishment
instrument of slavery / shipping and gave rise to the expression:

'TAKE IT LIKE A MAN'!}"

YOUTUBE: "Ten Little Indians (Popular Nursery Rhyme by KidsCamp)"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0SkWCCWrF8>

Don't mind us as we are just filleting, shifting and reclaiming neutrons
from affluent effluent as waste ...

This is within accord with our universal jurisdiction mining rights.

That ought to read sifting as we are not doing anything shifty...

D.L.K

YOUTUBE: "Doctor Who - The Parting of the Ways - The Dalek Emperor"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ThpkjDgdvY>

DOLF: "I hope you lot aren't playing dead already.

YOUTUBE: "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCjJyiqpAuU>

That's too soon in the script isn't it and wasn't there suppose to be a
rapacious slaughter where you each take a token trophy."

ABC NEWS @ 1040 HOURS ON 1 AUGUST 2018: "PLANE CRASH IN NORTHERN MEXICO
INJURES 85 OF THE 101 PEOPLE ONBOARD, BUT NO DEATHS REPORTED:

Mexican airline Aeromexico says there are no reports of fatalities after
one of its planes carrying 101 people crashed near an airport in northern
Mexico.

Flight 2431 had 97 passengers and four crew members onboard when it crashed
shortly after taking off from Durango International Airport about 1600
HOURS (UTC-5) on 31 JULY 2018 (0700 HOURS ON 1 AUGUST 2018 AEST).

Governor Jose Rosas Aispuro told Mexican television that witnesses told him
there was 'a bang' and then without warning the plane was on the ground.

Television images showed the severely damaged body of the plane in
scrubland and a column of smoke rising into the sky.

About 85 people were injured, at least two critically, but Aeromexico
tweeted it had no reports of fatalities."

<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-01/aeromexico-plane-crashes-outside-of-durango-mexico/10059856>

SEE ALSO: “ONTIC % #41 VALUES NECESSARY TO PROTECT CONSENSUS OBLIGATION
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES”

<http://www.grapple369.com/docs/Obligans.pdf>

- dolf

A DRAFT REVISION OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE OBTAINED AS A PDF DOCUMENT FROM
THIS URL:

<http://www.grapple369.com/docs/Manufacture.pdf>

Initial Post: 1 August 2018

#MANUFACTURING #CONSENT

--


YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>

SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.

<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
Loading...