Michael Harold:

The average number of comments before libertarianism is mentioned is 42

The Ultimate Answer! Of course you are right.

Well done. And it's always gratifying to be mentioned in dispatches, even when one has done so little to merit it. :-)

What is the average amount of pages of comments before the inevitable infighting over libertarianism or some semantical tangent?

Any guesses/theories?

I've done a complete analysis using several state-of-the-art statistical methods recently developed to quantify such things.

The average number of comments before libertarianism is mentioned is 42 depending on whether or not Shooter or RealName have been sitting in front of their computers all morning repeatedly hitting their refresh button so that they can enter a phrase like "Is it in blog format? Otherwise, What the hell?" or "Who cares?" or "Heh" on the first page of comments at which point the other commenters immediately set about trying to humiliate them (which is not possible). This tends to delay the onset of libertarian flame wars by an average of 10 comments.

Libertarian fireworks are normally set off when a commenter accuses another commenter of not taking the first commenter seriously at which point Ron Paul almost always the conversation. After the words "Ron Paul" are written, the insults escalate and usually continue until the end of the thread. The only libertarian who is an exception to this rule is Mona, because Mona is a somewhat reasonable person, almost never takes offense, and besides, most of the other commenters seem to like her. I know I do.

Debates on issues of semantics, sidereal as they seem at times, are actually the result of one of the newer commenters over eagerly typing a response to a comment containing one or more National Spelling Bee words without waiting for sysprog, LWM, William Timberman or either of the two Pauls to provide a detailed explanation of the words at issue along with links and other references.

Re: Newman's Corollary

Oh, well, I guess I can take that off my list of things that need a meme. ;~)

Sorry, Darkness, but someone already named it, and in the self-referential mode mentioned earlier, it sounds as if Godwin was in on it.

Karen:

Now we need a term to describe arguments that devolve into liberarians throwing sand in everyone else's eyes... but we'll naturally have to use some other name for the corollary.

Oh, Godwin's got that covered, too:

I seeded Godwin's Law in any newsgroup or topic where I saw a gratuitous Nazi reference. Soon, to my surprise, other people were citing it - the counter-meme was reproducing on its own! And it mutated like a meme, generating corollaries like the following:

* Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law: Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial net.news discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html

Frankly, it only serves him right. ;~) He gets to describe one type of argument and be one of those being described in another.

Actually, it sounds like that was his aim all along!

I agree it's pretty hilarious... but that doesn't make it any the less useful-- or needed.

Of course, Godwin couldn't have described discussions that devolved into food-fights among libertarians-- that would have been too self-referential, even for the web, and especially for the Staff Counsel to the EFF. [http://www.godwinslaw.org/about]

Now we need a term to describe arguments that devolve into liberarians throwing sand in everyone else's eyes... but we'll naturally have to use some other name for the corollary.

Frankly, it only serves him right. ;~) He gets to describe one type of argument and be one of those being described in another.

Any suggestions for a name? Here's your chance...

I posted something about your comments on Maxine Hong Kingston:

http://lyssa-strada.bloggyland.com/?time=1182308002

Thanks, Both!!!

Mike Godwin is a libertarian.

Bwaaahahahahahaha!

But I distictly remember asserting that even in the reality-challenged times we live in that this was an idea too daft to even be mentioned anymore.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL1982814520070619?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

Tougher sanctions or a blockade on Iran could help foment growing internal dissent to topple the government, former U.S. Republican senator Fred Thompson, a potential presidential candidate, said on Tuesday.

Nothing like cutting off food supplies to win friends and influence people. Best be sure that there's a steady supply of flowers though. The grateful populace will need them to greet their liberators with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801713.html

'Woman Warrior,' A Memoir That Shook the Genre

By JONATHAN YARDLEY
Tuesday, June 19, 2007; Page C01

An occasional series in which The Post's book critic reconsiders notable and/or neglected books from the past.

[ . . . ] "The Woman Warrior" and Kingston's second memoir, "China Men" (1980), are the most widely taught books by a living American author on college campuses today [ . . . ]

- - Jonathan Yardley

It's amazing that none of Libby's supporters have noticed that telling the simple truth would have kept Libby out of jail.

That's what you do in a Grand Jury if you won't want to commit a crime. You'd think a decent education or some common sense would clue someone in on that fact.

Mr Bop-OH! got here just in the nick of time. Thanks.
Reverently,
Ginsberg

Many thanks for your absolutely dead-on piece. I immediately went straight to Amazon to pre-order your new ("Legacy") book, along with the last one, in appreciation.

It recalls for me all the bitching and whining we heard from the Repubs in the 1996 campaign about how if Bill Clinton were reelected, he would pardon all of his "criminal" friends. Some of Clinton's friends *were* in jail, but they weren't criminals guilty of anything, and they should have been pardoned. I suppose that would have been undignified in Clinton's view.

And then again we heard the same thing from these same pro-criminals about how Bill Clinton would surely pardon himself and all of his buddies as he left office. Clinton never pardoned himself or any of his friends, not ever, of course.

Who did he pardon? Mark Rich, who was a Republican and whose main lawyer was none other than Scooter Libby, that's who. It didn't stop 'em of course, they still screamed to deafening high heaven about Clinton's pardoning *anyone*, never mentioning that the pardoned person was one of their own.

Now look at them. What a damn sorry pile of abject hyprocicy.

Edson C. Hendricks 6/19/07 19:19 PDT

San Diego, California, USA