On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 19:24 -0600, Nethaniel St. Donovan wrote: [snip] > So this would imply Paul has "lost" the rant and also in poor form? > > PARAPHRASED from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law: > " In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is > also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to > invoke the law explicitly. " Heh. Depends on what my purposes were. Of course, if you didn't catch it from the context within which I posted it, it was most definitely done in jest with full knowledge that it would have no effect. Then again, since it has now degenerated from LILO vs. GRUB into GODWIN's vs. QUIRK's, it seems that, yes, my invocation of Godwin's Law did, indeed have an effect: this thread now has zero useful content, which was my goal in short circuiting the process towards Godwin's Law occurring naturally. QED. ;-) /me wonders out loud if he can convince Red Hat to develop a patch to mailman to automatically invoke Godwin's Law and avoid the Quirk's Law effect for FC4. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets