On 13 Jul 2003 10:12:10 GMT, huge@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

>John's Cat <johns-cat@hotmail.com> writes:
>>On 13 Jul 2003 08:11:10 GMT, huge@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>>
>>>Road Runner <roadrunner.RRR@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>[13 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>>The parents of a child who was run down outside their house while
>>>>playing on their bike by a driver who was exceeding the posted speed
>>>>limit may very well disagree.
>>>
>>>Anyone who uses the "What about the childr-u-u-u-u-u-u-n" argument
>>>automatically loses.
>>
>>Time, perhaps, for a revision or extension to Godwin?
>
>The thought had occured.

How about

"Any coversation about road saftey, or saftey in context of privatley
owned weapons will ultimatley result in someone posting a response
about the needs of child saftey in an attempt to white wash over any
rational arguments. At this point the poster automatically looses and
any futher usefullness of the thread is lost. Subsequent postings will
be little more than insults and micky taking". 

Huge's law - 2003
-- 
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with 
          white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw