Godwin, Bowers and me.

Lawmen.

Chris Bowers at MyDD suggests that we need a new Godwin's Law. I think the old one is still useful, so changes should be in the form of amendment or extension, not replacement, but I generally agree with Bowers' sentiments, and the grounds for his new rules.

When in an argument, using any variation of the following will cause the user to lose the argument and end that line of discussion:

9/11 changed everything

9/11 You don't want another 9/11 to happen, do you?

This could be prevent another 9/11

A comparison involving terrorists or 9/11

Call it Bowers' Correlary to Godwin's Law.

And may I modestly add Dale's Addendum?

The use of any of the above by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government at any level shall be grounds for immediate impeachment or resignation. In the case of pundits, public flogging shall suffice.

It may, from time to time, be permissable to suggest that 9/11 changed something, perhaps many things, but they need to be specified and the changes documented.

Deal?