Reviews Literature / Nineteen Eighty Four

I've never been a fan of the dystopian genre but I guess I can see the value in it. I read this in school and I think English teachers must like it because it's not subtle and it's easy to pick apart the novel, analyze it, and discuss it. I thought it was actually a fun read, but like many school-assigned novels, I never would have been interested in it outside of school. I do think that these books at least warn people to be wary of absolute authority, even if it does so in a repetitive and unrelenting manner.

As for your review, you might want to check on your grammar and wording.

And do note that the author George Orwell WAS A SOCIALIST. He was not a Stalinist; assuming the two are one and the same is like assuming that Christian = Baptist.

Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is supposed to be about a totalitarian regime with no true political ideology; just an obsession with controlling its citizens. The whole point was "don't let anyone get too much power or they'll never relinquish it" with a hint of "the future fascists will call themselves anti-fascists...when it suits them".

Anvilicious books are never realistic anyways.

"I honestly can't take it seriously because... well, the Party is a bunch of Dastardly Whiplash one dimensional Villain Sue"

Not O'Brien, and if you imagine he represents the mindset of the Inner Party, it's not so one-dimensional, is it. The Party itself is not a character, and as such cannot be a Dastardly Whiplash Villain Sue. But even if it were, systems of government can be just that obviously evil. See the USSR, on which it is based.

^Lol, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see people here trying to simplify real life into "one-dimensional villain" tropes.

"And no, is not like North Korea or Russia Stalin"

Yes it is. It was intended to be like them, and succeeded. At least that's what people who lived under them say. Or some of them, anyway.

"While those parts are/where very brutal, they have neither the level of control and power that the Party supposed possesd and they have so"

That's why it's science fiction.

"the Party is a bunch of Dastardly Whiplash one dimensional Villain Sue, who always win because the plot say so"

The USSR last for 80 years, so they did win for the lifespans of entire generations. Also, did you somehow miss Winston vowing that something within humankind will resist domination? just because he loses in the end doesn't mean he and everyone like him will forever be lost.

"the later had a more beliavable internal structure and economic work."

Things didn't work exactly like in the book, but two points: (1) totalitarian economic systems actually existed, and (2) it was supposed to take place after nuclear war, or some kind of total war anyway, which would change a lot of things.

"the bad dreams of a Socialist fearing Author"

Again, not really dreams, as such things or close to them actually existed. And socialist-fearing? Are you kidding me? Orwell was a socialist, probably the most famous British socialist of the 20th century. Not your random armchair socialist, either: he risked everything by fighting against fascists in Spain, as recounted in the classic memoir "Homage to Catalonia."

"Goodness, at least in Equilibrium show an actually form of Control, how does (somewhat) work and show that in the end is as fragil as a towers of cards in the Middle of a Hurricane."

This sentence is incomprehensible.

"^Lol, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see people here trying to simplify real life into 'one-dimensional villain' tropes."

It wasn't I, remember, who described Oceania as being one-dimensional. I very heavily implied it wasn't, with the "it's not so one-dimensional, is it," which admittedly should have closed with a question mark.

You're being unfair if you took my saying "systems of government can be just that obviously evil" to mean I think real-life countries can be Dastardly Whiplashes. I meant, if not as clearly as I'd have liked, that they can be just as evil as Oceania. Or relatively so, as Oceania is an exaggeration. That said, the Nazis and Soviets are as close to one-dimensional villains as you'll find.

I find the review... surreal. Nineteen Eighty Four silly? The work that sums many aspects of the dystopia, showing that those of total power will eventually focus on power only as its own means? It is a warning to avoid such evils, not a silly show.

"the Party is a bunch of Dastardly Whiplash one dimensional Villain Sue, who always win because the plot say so."

Methinks you should avoid the genre, then. Whereas Utopias are perfect societies, Dystopias are perfectly bad. All such novels are going to be superficially reductive, simplistic, and Dastardly Whiplashy.

"That said, the Nazis and Soviets are as close to one-dimensional villains as you'll find. "

No, the Soviets and Nazis are far from one-dimensional, and they're just the most famous villains for the western world.

"The work that sums many aspects of the dystopia, showing that those of total power will eventually focus on power only as its own means? It is a warning to avoid such evils, not a silly show. "

Because a work of fiction is definitely something I would use to prove a philosophical statement. Sure.

^Er... do you know you George Orwell is? He fought in the Spanish Civil War! He is the type who puts a message in his work! Philosophical statements are found in grand works of fiction like 1984. The statement it is not is unjustified.

"No, the Soviets and Nazis are far from one-dimensional"

A whole word, "totalitarianism," was invented to describe their regimes. According to the dictionary, totalitarianism is "a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed." You may think that's reductive; reality is always more complicated than we can imagine. But most of humanity, or at least the ones familiar with the concept, commonly apply the term to Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Oceania without worry, so maybe it bears some relevance.

"Because a work of fiction is definitely something I would use to prove a philosophical statement. Sure."

Prove, no. But express, sure. Or weren't you aware that authors use novels to make a point?

"^Er... do you know you George Orwell is? He fought in the Spanish Civil War! He is the type who puts a message in his work! Philosophical statements are found in grand works of fiction like 1984. The statement it is not is unjustified. "

Because fighting in a war somehow makes your philosophical views more correct. Sure. Advice: If you want your philosophy to be a little more credible, don't use words like "always" or "never" unless you really mean it.

"A whole word, "totalitarianism," was invented to describe their regimes. According to the dictionary, totalitarianism is "a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed." You may think that's reductive; reality is always more complicated than we can imagine. But most of humanity, or at least the ones familiar with the concept, commonly apply the term to Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Oceania without worry, so maybe it bears some relevance. "

...All I said was that they weren't one-dimensional at all. What point are you trying to make?

"Prove, no. But express, sure. Or weren't you aware that authors use novels to make a point? "

Yes. That really is kind of a problem: people being so easily manipulated by fear. But it can't even be considered evidence.

"All I said was that they weren't one-dimensional at all. What point are you trying to make?"

I thought that should have been obvious from pointing out that it's commonly acceptable to call them totalitarian states, and that according to the definition I posted, to be "totalitarian" is to be one-dimensional. Or as close as is possible in real life.

"But it can't even be considered evidence"

No one asked you to consider it evidence. But you are supposed to recognize it as referring to the real world, if only by suggestion. It was certainly familiar to people who actually lived under such regimes. You can check documentary and witness evidence for what that was like to see if it matches the book.

"Because fighting in a war somehow makes your philosophical views more correct"

I believe the point was he's an ideologue, a partisan, and someone with a history of putting his ideas into action, which suggests that his books might have a message. You seem to have been making the argument that philosophical arguments in novels can't settle anything, but it appeared as if you doubted a novelist's motivation to include philosophy altogether.

eveil: You arguments against 1984 shell be countered: the worth of a work of fiction that the book be is the demonstration of dictatroships and the ultimate means that total power may lead, along with how increase control of the population will result in ill results. Also I find it odd in relation of your other debates in reviews that you are reguarding fiction as... "unuseful for debating." Realy? 1984 not useful? Charles Dicken's works which show social problems of life not useful? The classical works of Shakespear which notes the human condition is not useful? Could you... explain your position please?

@tublecane

"I thought that should have been obvious from pointing out that it's commonly acceptable to call them totalitarian states, and that according to the definition I posted, to be "totalitarian" is to be one-dimensional. Or as close as is possible in real life.

No one asked you to consider it evidence. But you are supposed to recognize it as referring to the real world, if only by suggestion. It was certainly familiar to people who actually lived under such regimes. You can check documentary and witness evidence for what that was like to see if it matches the book. "

Fair enough, I see what you're trying to say now.

@Ailedhoo

"eveil: You arguments against 1984 shell be countered: the worth of a work of fiction that the book be is the demonstration of dictatroships and the ultimate means that total power may lead, along with how increase control of the population will result in ill results. Also I find it odd in relation of your other debates in reviews that you are reguarding fiction as... "unuseful for debating." Realy? 1984 not useful? Charles Dicken's works which show social problems of life not useful? The classical works of Shakespear which notes the human condition is not useful? Could you... explain your position please? "

It means "X is bad because this work of fiction said so" is not a good argument. Works of fiction don't demonstrate anything. They might take what's already been demonstrated by real life and put it together as a convincing piece of propaganda, but they're never evidence. Oh, and you're supposed to use actual evidence in a debate.

"eveil"

"It means "X is bad because this work of fiction said so" is not a good argument. Works of fiction don't demonstrate anything. They might take what's already been demonstrated by real life and put it together as a convincing piece of propaganda, but they're never evidence. Oh, and you're supposed to use actual evidence in a debate."

One I was demonstrating that these works grant attention to issues. Oliver Twist for example helped people to realise the evils of the work houses. The same is how 1984 warns people of how too much power in a system can cause great evil. Yes you may refer to it as "convincing peice of propanganda" but speaks this: sometimes a anvill has to be dropped. Totallism is a important issue. Work of fiction demonstrate the human condition and life. This notion that it does not is... elitist to put it politly. Realism may not be the motive here: humanity is the moitve here. Observe notes that this is not a one dimensional peice as the Party like the USSR at the time were conclaved with a feature which helped cause terror: the taste of power.

@Ailedhoo

A work of fiction doesn't need to have reality on its side to be a convincing piece of propaganda. For example: You can write a convincing piece of fiction that's anti-slavery (Uncle Tom's Cabin), or you can write one that's pro-slavery (Aunt Phillis's Cabin).

Works of fiction don't demonstrate reality or a point any better than your standard piece of government propaganda. You're right though; they probably are useful for persuasion, since people tend to respond better to emotional manipulation rather than to logical arguments.

@eveil

So fiction is... emotional manipulation? Have you seen that the logic and emotion are important to understand the condition of the world? And while reality does not equal art, 1984 is a exaggeration of the evils that existed: people did disapear under Stalin you know...

O and guess what? Orwell did use logic! What do you think his message was?! "Tottellian states are evil" is a anvil that needs to be delivered as "democratic" states like the UK seem to forget this with the CCTV.

Also: everything can be considered propaganda. What differs with 1984 is that the story is of the grand: it tells the story though.

In the end a peice of fiction has logic for expression is a way that humans can get others to understand issues.

"So fiction is... emotional manipulation? Have you seen that the logic and emotion are important to understand the condition of the world? And while reality does not equal art, 1984 is a exaggeration of the evils that existed: people did disapear under Stalin you know... "

Aside from giving you the motivation, emotion is worthless for understanding the condition of the world. It just makes you think you understand.

"O and guess what? Orwell did use logic! What do you think his message was?! "Tottellian states are evil" is a anvil that needs to be delivered as "democratic" states like the UK seem to forget this with the CCTV. "

You're letting your political views cloud your judgment. Leave politics out of this.

Just because Orwell's book has some truth in it doesn't mean you should start using fictional books to prove anything in reality.

"Also: everything can be considered propaganda."

No, just any argument. Reality is neutral.

"In the end a peice of fiction has logic for expression is a way that humans can get others to understand issues. "

No, they just think they understand. And anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

@eveil

Emotion is not worthless in understanding. The term "empathy" is used here. It is a important part of being human. And yes political views are a part of this since THIS IS A POLITICAL BOOK! Why else is the anvil delivered but with a political message?

Guess what? Fictional books do have importance in reality. Hence why many figures use this book as a warning. It is the same reason To Kill a Mocking Bird was used as a anti-racism evidence: sure it is fictional but the message and the emotion of the characturs give the reasons needed.

By the way people do understand. It is not a case that "the other side is wrong." Realy? Expression is a fullest way of message and fiction is a way of expression. It is simple: fiction is of the condition. Logic and emotion are both equally needed. It is called being human.

@Ailedhoo

"Emotion is not worthless in understanding. The term "empathy" is used here. It is a important part of being human. And yes political views are a part of this since THIS IS A POLITICAL BOOK! Why else is the anvil delivered but with a political message? "

Except you don't need emotion to know how a group of people feel. You probably don't even need to know how a group of people feel to understand the condition of the world. Just observe their behavior.

It may be a political book, but this isn't a political discussion.

"Guess what? Fictional books do have importance in reality. Hence why many figures use this book as a warning. It is the same reason To Kill a Mocking Bird was used as a anti-racism evidence: sure it is fictional but the message and the emotion of the characturs give the reasons needed. "

Yes, and Mein Kampf was able to inspire millions of Germans to Hitler's cause (I hate having to use Hitler as an example).

Fictional books aren't evidence. They're propaganda. There's nothing that prevents people from using propaganda to support a cause that you find to be unjust.

"By the way people do understand. It is not a case that "the other side is wrong." Realy? Expression is a fullest way of message and fiction is a way of expression. It is simple: fiction is of the condition. Logic and emotion are both equally needed. It is called being human. "

Expression isn't evidence. Use it when you need to manipulate emotions, but not when you need to make a logical argument.

What the hell does "being human" have anything to do with whether or not fictional books can be used as evidence, anyways?

@eceil

Empathy is needed to understand the world. How else do you understand or care?

Now I would continue then...

"Yes, and Mein Kampf was able to inspire millions of Germans to Hitler's cause (I hate having to use Hitler as an example)."

Good job: you now broke Godwins Law and so can not be taken seriusly. Fictional books are evidence of the time but why should I argue with one like you who compared Orwell to Hitler? Realy? That is immature!

"Empathy is needed to understand the world. How else do you understand or care? "

Try logic, reasoning, and evidence.

"Good job: you now broke Godwins Law and so can not be taken seriusly. Fictional books are evidence of the time but why should I argue with one like you who compared Orwell to Hitler? Realy? That is immature! "

Ok, then don't argue. See if I give a damn.

Thanks for reminding me why I usually don't even bother with logical arguments anymore, though.

@eveil

Maybe the reason you do not bother is that you do not use logic? Why else would you break Godwins Law?

Godwin's Law is irrelevant to the argument. Don't bring it up again, or I'll just ignore it.

It is relevant: the one who breaks it has nothing to argue. Such is the rules of Godwins Law.

Did you get all of your debating "skills" from the Tvtropes logical fallacies page?

Sorry, but I don't have time to explain to you how I didn't break Godwins' Law. You could probably figure it out yourself if you didn't have this habit of reading too fast and missing words. Or it could just be the language barrier.

So you think I am... foolish? Sorry but from Godwins Law page itself:

"It is generally accepted that whoever is the first to play the "Hitler card" has lost the argument as well as any trace of respect, as having to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history generally means you've run out of better arguments."

I will also put out that Mein Kampf was a non-fiction book: it was not of a story but Hitler's direct views.

"So you think I am... foolish? Sorry but from Godwins Law page itself:

"It is generally accepted that whoever is the first to play the "Hitler card" has lost the argument as well as any trace of respect, as having to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history generally means you've run out of better arguments." "

Whatever you say.

"I will also put out that Mein Kampf was a non-fiction book: it was not of a story but Hitler's direct views. "

Replace "Mein Kampf" with "Aunt Phillis's Cabin" or something then.

I will pretend that you did not break Godwins Law for this once. Irony be that Orwell spoke of how people compared others to fascists...

That said it is still a varation of Godwins Law your breaking as it also states:

"Occasionally Stalin is referenced, often by people who are aware of Godwins Law but want to convey a similar message; in this case, this might slip into the Commie Nazis trope. Some people will be topical and use Osama bin Laden or slavery (especially's America's brand of it) as the canonical ultimate evil. However, any of these can also be seen to have violated Godwin's Law. "

When talking of a work please do not use example reguarded as promoting reconised evils. Orwell was not a evil man. Comparing his work to Hitler or a pro-slavery work is rather immature. O and I am of debating skills: just you are very troll like in how you debate.

Godwins' Law isn't "Oh my god, he mentioned Hitler, he just broke Godwins' Law!"

Try actually learning your logical fallacies before you start throwing them out everywhere.

I am aware of logical fallacies. I am saying... you should pick your comprisments carefully or people will not take your arguments into account. It is illogical to use Mein Kampf in arguring against 1984 for many reason not just linking to the fact you compared 1984 to the work of a evil figure. Mein Kampf is a book of political thought process in a non-fictional way, it only came to sell more when the end of the 1920s came with Hitler's increased populality and consist of one charactur: the voice of Hitler.

1984 is a story and so already differs from Mein Kampf. Still it be nice that people did not use Hitler in a argument in a way you did without reference to logical and emotional reason: Godwins Law is enforced for a reason.

Uh huh, here, burden of proof is with you.

Go back and read, and then show me how I compared Orwell to Hitler.

Enough of this Hitler crap. I won't let you derail this anymore.

"Guess what? Fictional books do have importance in reality. Hence why many figures use this book as a warning. It is the same reason To Kill a Mocking Bird was used as a anti-racism evidence: sure it is fictional but the message and the emotion of the characturs give the reasons needed. "

Fictional books aren't evidence. They're propaganda. There's nothing that prevents people from using propaganda to support a cause that you find to be unjust.

One I was not the one who derailed the argument. The breaker of Godwins Law was.

Second fictional books are evidence. They show the time and show the message. Observe Oliver Twist for this.

They can usef for unjust causes but Orwell's work is of evidence. It is properganda but also is the little note saying you should look both ways across the road.

Orwell's work is of evidence.

"Second fictional books are evidence. They show the time and show the message. Observe Oliver Twist for this.

They can usef for unjust causes but Orwell's work is of evidence. It is properganda but also is the little note saying you should look both ways across the road.

Orwell's work is of evidence."

Show how a fictional book can be used as evidence in reality.

First compare the totallian nature of North Korea to the book. Observe the love of the leader? The love of Big Brother?

Shakespear has been used countlessy in political speeches.

To Kill a Mocking Bird shows what life was like in the South and of the racism found there.

Oliver Twist has been mentioned already. Dicken's other works also show the poverty of the Victorian period.

Mythology is a source of culture.

Fiction is a cultural resource as well as the teller of thoughts of the time, the warnings of evil, the deliver of moral, comment on the human condition and the use of imagination. If you say that fiction cannot be used in reality then what can be? If you denounce fiction as "none real" and "properganda" then you denounce the imagination, the comment of the human condition and expression. Fiction is the fruit of expression: expression is both properganda and evidence. Reality is not neutral for if it was the concept of good and evil would not exist.

"First compare the totallian nature of North Korea to the book. Observe the love of the leader? The love of Big Brother?"

1984 isn't evidence for North Korea. It's more like North Korea is evidence for 1984.

"Shakespear has been used countlessy in political speeches."

Political speeches don't prove anything. They're for inspiration and propaganda.

"To Kill a Mocking Bird shows what life was like in the South and of the racism found there."

To Kill a Mocking Bird isn't evidence that life in the South was like that. Going to the south and observing life there is evidence of that.

"Oliver Twist has been mentioned already. Dicken's other works also show the poverty of the Victorian period."

Those books aren't evidence that being poor sucks. Observing the poor is evidence that being poor sucks.

" Fiction is a cultural resource as well as the teller of thoughts of the time, the warnings of evil, the deliver of moral, comment on the human condition and the use of imagination. If you say that fiction cannot be used in reality then what can be? If you denounce fiction as "none real" and "properganda" then you denounce the imagination, the comment of the human condition and expression. Fiction is the fruit of expression: expression is both properganda and evidence. Reality is not neutral for if it was the concept of good and evil would not exist. ""

Misrepresentation of my Argument: I never said fiction cannot be used in reality. Just not as evidence in an attempt to prove anything. Please refrain from misrepresenting my argument.

I'd comment about the last sentence, but I'm pretty sure it'll end up derailing the argument, so I'll refrain.

Fiction can be used for reality: reality is unrealistic. Reality cause fiction. Fiction is on the human condition. The human condtion is to prove. Oliver Twist help prove to many the evils of the workhouses by opening their eyes: that is a example of fiction as evidence.

Oliver Twist didn't prove it. He just brought attention to it. Making people pay attention to something isn't the same as proving it.

Attention and prove can be linked: the experience of Oliver were reflective of the work houses.

Attention and proof may be linked, but attention isn't the same as proof. Oliver didn't prove that the workhouses suck. Observation showed that. Oliver just made people pay attention to it.

Oliver was the observation: the observation is the proof.

Oliver observed workhouses, then he made people pay attention to them with a book, so other people observed workhouses.

Hence it is evidence

If it really was evidence, you'd be able to say "Workhouses suck because this book said so" as a serious argument.

eveil: Apropos of your objection to novelistic philosophizing, you throw around words like "prove" and "evidence," why? Are you sure you're not confusing philosophy with science (which actually used to be called "natural philosophy," though that has no bearing on the current subject)? I'll grant people operate under the delusion that philosophy consists of argumentation, with evidence and proof. That was the convention in the early modern era, at least, which we study endlessly as "the Enlightenment" or "The Age of Reason," wherein Descartes, Leibniz, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, et. al. started from tautologies to arrive, through strict, geometrical steps, to rock-solid particular verities. But that doesn't cover the majority of the discipline, which consists of bald declarations.

See, for instance, the 19th century and the "arguments" of Schopenhauer, Hegel, Marx, Nietszche, just to name the Germans. Their books consist mostly of what has been called "oracular philosophy," or what I might term Just Sayin'. Most philosophers just say things. "1984" just says this is the nature of power unchecked. Whether that can be sustained by argument, and whether it comports with the evidence available about the sort of governments Orwell was alluding to is another matter.

"Try actually learning your logical fallacies before you start throwing them out everywhere"

Godwin's Law does not cover a logical fallacy. Not even an argumentative fallacy, even.

I simply call out philosophy whenever it tries to pose itself as the unambiguous truth.

Godwin's Law does not cover a logical fallacy. Not even an argumentative fallacy, even.

He's implying that I'm using guilt by association. At least I think that's what he really means. It's kind of hard to understand him.

@eveil

What I ment was that you where breaking Godwins Law as oppose to looking for a example. Let me simplify for you to understand: if you bring Hitler into a argument, like the way you just did, you have little to no notions to argue with.

Also: 1984 has been a source of inspiration for awarness for those against the abush of power. Kinda like a notion of morals as it where.

What I ment was that you where breaking Godwins Law as oppose to looking for a example. Let me simplify for you to understand: if you bring Hitler into a argument, like the way you just did, you have little to no notions to argue with.

Like I said, go learn your fallacies before you start throwing them around.

Godwins Law isn't "YOU SAID HITLER YOU LOSE".

Also: 1984 has been a source of inspiration for awarness for those against the abush of power. Kinda like a notion of morals as it where.

So what? Books can be used to support any cause.

"I simply call out philosophy whenever it tries to pose itself as the unambiguous truth"

Why? I mean, that's what philosophy ("love of wisdom") is for. I could see damning it altogether, or speaking up when you think it's false. But to call it out for being arrogant? All philosophy is arrogant, which brings us back to damning it altogether.

It has nothing to do with arrogance. It's the fact that people often use it as a substitute for evidence, proof, and science that I find to be the problem.

"It has nothing to do with arrogance. It's the fact that people often use it as a substitute for evidence, proof, and science that I find to be the problem."

I would argue that pretty well falls under intellectual arrogance, but fine, whatever. Your point seems to be against philsophy as a whole, then, not philosophy in novels. Which makes me wonder, why attack works of fiction, in particular, for being philosophical?

"It has nothing to do with arrogance"

Perhaps pretension is a better term?

I would argue that pretty well falls under intellectual arrogance, but fine, whatever. Your point seems to be against philsophy as a whole, then, not philosophy in novels. Which makes me wonder, why attack works of fiction, in particular, for being philosophical?

That question is irrelevant to the argument. My motives are my own business.

"That question is irrelevant to the argument. My motives are my own business."

It is relevant in an indirect sense, as in if we know why you'd go after a novel for being philosophical, we'd better know whether that's a legitimate criticism. Also, there's never only one argument going on, and it would be relevant to an argument over what your motives are. Or, to put it better, what your underlying reasons and assumptions are. Whether or not they're your business, I want to know about them, which is why I asked.

First of all, I'm criticizing Ailedhoo, not the novel.

Second, I don't have anything against philosophy as a whole. Just the kind of philosophy that Ailedhoo practices: baseless assertions.

@eveil: You didn't just say Hitler. You said "Mein Kampf is a work of fiction just like 1984 (wrong, incidentally) making both propaganda. And, the implication for readers would be, Bad Things. It's attempted emotional manipulation, and you know it. You made a comparison of Orwell and Hitler, and that's Godwin's Law. Not Godwin's Law classic (I hope you won't stoop to calling me Hitler) but Godwin's Law nonetheless.

No it's not. Go learn Godwin's Law and actually read what I posted instead of "OMG HE SAID HITLER"?