On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Dave Manginelli <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 09:39 -0600, Steven S. Critchfield wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 19:38 -0600, Greg Donald wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Bill Woody <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Maybe we could let the government run the internet provisioning! > > > > > It could > > > > > easily be added to Obamacare! > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act > > > > > > > > Only dumb rednecks who watch Faux News refer to it by that name. > > > > > > > > We voted. You lost. Get over it. > > > > > > > > > > This discussion seemed to be a friendly one regarding a topic at the > > > intersection of politics and technology until you jumped in with the > > > "dumb rednecks" assertion. > > > > The term Obamacare is carefully crafted and charged. It also was bringing > > in something not technology related. So that was the start down the > > slippery slope. It did pick up steam fast after that. > > > > > FWIW I've never heard anyone, left or right, other than a politician, > > > refer to the health insurance legislation passed under Obama by it's > > > official title of "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." > > > > > > Would you have been less offended if Bill had used a different > > > colloquialism such as "Federal Health Care Reform?" > > > > Offended by the term used is not the problem. It was straying from the > > technological discussion into a known divisive topic that offended me. > > -- > > Steven Critchfield [email protected] > > > > Well spoken, Steven. > > I think you're correct on all counts, especially: > "Offended by the term used is not the problem. It was straying from the > technological discussion into a known divisive topic that offended me." > > That's the sentiment I wish I would have heard from Greg rather than his > blanket assertion regarding all users of the term "Obamacare." > > > Can we just assert that even though the actual criteria of Godwin's Law has not been reached, that this thread has jumped into such territory?Thus, this thread is now ended. Thanks. Andrew > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "NLUG" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
