How many of these have been broken on CF? Are there any you think should be added? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...s-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html 1. Godwin's Law: As a web discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. 2. Poe's law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing. 3. Rule 34/35: If it exists, there is p*rnography of it (34) If no such p*rn exists, it will be made (35)[/i] 4. Skitt's law: Any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself or the likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster. 5. Scopie's Law: Any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses the argument immediately, and gets you laughed out of the room. 6. Danth’s Law (also known as Parker’s Law): If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly. 7. Pommer’s Law: A person's mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be from having no opinion to having a wrong opinion. 8. DeMyer's Second Law: Anyone who posts an argument on the internet which is largely quotations can be very safely ignored, and is deemed to have lost the argument before it has begun. 9. Cohen’s Law: Whoever resorts to the argument that ‘whoever resorts to the argument that... …has automatically lost the debate’ has automatically lost the debate. 10. The Law of Exclamation: The more exclamation points used in an email (or other posting), the more likely it is a complete lie. This is also true for excessive capital letters.
Law of Aphrodite: No matter how attractive a woman may be, there will be a person who will not fornicate with them based on some trivial or completely ridiculous reason.
SO's Law: If a post makes mention of a significant other, the probability of a responding post threatening the thread is useless without pics rises exponentially based on the claimed hotness of said significant other.
This one originated at another website I used to frequent (lurk). oldsmoboat's law 178 up, 17 down This law states that when a thread title says "Funny" or implies that it will be, it won't be.
I feel like a corollary to this law should be that no matter how unattractive a woman is, her presence on a primarily male-dominated BBS will garner her a disproportional amount of attention.
I agree with these laws. Their origins, however, are suspect. I would say that at least 70% of them could draw origins to this BBS. I challenge the board to find the originators.
Number 9 sounds like the circular reasoning used in the D&D in near about every thread. And I've already lost that argument.
Ahem. For the record, allow me to say that I am instead: [rquoter]Arkansas' Biggest Rocket fan!! Arkansas' Biggest Philadelphia Eagle fan!![/rquoter]
Top 10 Internet Forum rules: <embed src="http://blip.tv/play/gp5hgarmPQA%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="590" height="362" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
