Bruce Markowitz wrote:
Hitler is dead too. Maybe he was a Mossad agent.
WHERE DO THEY FIND THESE NUTS?????

Do you find it easier to attack people rather than discuss or rebut the
points they make?

For example, you might try saying something like this: "Those points
that you all mention seem to be on rather shaky ground. While they
appear to have some validity on the surface, I don't find that I can
agree with them until I see more evidence. Until you can show me proof
that you're right, I'd prefer to believe the word of our leaders."

Or, you could try a more direct approach: "Can you back any of this up?
Have you actually researched any of these claims yourself? If not, come
back when you can do more than speculate or spread rumors."

You're right, that's way too many words. It's a lot easier just to
attack people with short, barbed sentences and ignore the rest of the
discussion.

By the way, isn't anyone here familiar with Godwin's law? Here's the
current definition for those paying attention:

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. However there is also a widely-recognized codicil that
any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its
thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Regards,
John