oh for goodness sake. read my original email properly and you will see i was not comparing the atrocities committed by the nazis to the theft of public money. i was comparing the mindset of two sets of people who used flimsy excuses to justify their actions.
regards
bryan
--- On Sun, 31/5/09, Graham Bleach <graham@???> wrote:
> From: Graham Bleach <graham@???>
> Subject: Re: [Hampshire] sigs, was Godwin's law
> To: hampshire@???
> Date: Sunday, 31 May, 2009, 9:08 AM
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:59:49AM
> +0100, b.stevens611@???
> wrote:
> > So... It's ok to be sanctimonious and patronise people
> but not ok to
> > call people on it?
> > Hmmm...
>
> No, both of those things are fine by me. I just don't think
> that's whwat
> happened.
>
> > It was an OT thread about godwin's law. I was trying
> to have a laugh
> > when graham took exception to what i said about MPs. I
> called him on his
> > holier than thou attitude and now a bunch of you have
> your knickers in a
> > twist.
>
> I understand that you are rightfully pissed off about MPs
> claiming for
> ridiculous expenses. I am pissed off about that too. I just
> don't
> believe that it bears any comparison with Hitler. That is
> literally all
> I said.
>
> By saying that fiddling expenses is not as bad as the
> actions of the
> Nazis, I am not saying that fiddling expenses is not bad.
> Fiddling
> expenses and appropriating taxpayers' money is definitely
> bad. I hope
> that clears up any confusion on the subject.
>
> The reason I responded to your original mail is that by
> making these
> sort of trivial comparisons I think the magnitude of the
> Nazi crimes
> gets diminished in our heads.
>
> > Still, graham... What more could i expect from someone
> who describes
> > the wholesale theft of millions of pounds of taxpayers
> money as
> > "opportunist expenses claims"? Are you sure you're not
> related to an MP?
> > :-)
>
> Ha, I do believe it was theft and I should have said so.
> Not sure if it
> is worth arguing about the use of wholesale, although it is
> tempting ;-)
>
> Actually I am related to an MP, but he's not a politician.
> He works for
> the Australian Navy if you need any further clues ;-) Other
> than that,
> I don't know of any.
>
> > It was all tongue in cheek (hence the smilies) but if
> the result was
> > making the politically correct brigade have a fit of
> the vapours, it was
> > well worth it :-)
>
> Ah, the "smilies absolve me of all responsibility for my
> actions" card. I
> haven't seen that played for a couple of years. It's
> about as effective
> an argument as saying that anyone who disagrees with you is
> part of the
> "PC Brigade" ;-) [*]
>
> My expectation of this list, even on OT threads, is that
> people will at
> least attempt to have some sort of rational debate, which
> means
> at least responding to each other's points and not getting
> distracted
> into personal attacks. Maybe my expectation is
> unrealistic.
>
> Obviously it is quite infuriating to be called a
> patronising arse hat,
> but I'm not that bothered about it as long as you actually
> bother to
> respond to my arguments. "You were right all along,
> MPs' dodgy expenses
> claims are not as bad as the actions of Hitler." will do
> fine, thanks.
>
> I think I've spent enough of my time on this now, so that
> will probably be
> my last contribution on the subject, unless I feel that
> anyone needs to
> be patronised into submission.
>
> Cheers,
> Graham
>
> [*] You many not take exception to anything with a smilie
> after it,
> remember. Otherwise I will be able to say unkind things
> about you.
>
> --
> One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines
> of code.
> -- Ken Thompson
>
> --
> Please post to: Hampshire@???
> Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
> LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
