Talk:Pseudolaw
Some of those links are spectacularly funny, especially the one about maritime law. It sort of boggles the mind that at one point, actual living people sat down and wrote all that drivel, though. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:36, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- I have been playing with these people off and on for a while now........they are at least as much fun as the Creationist and its seems "fresher" but the problem is that 1) they have guns and like to kill things and 2) if one is not careful one can become involved in legal issues........which is a story for another time and another place :). tmtoulouse oppress 14:50, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- I hope you don't mind, I'm kinda copyediting some of this article. human
17:22, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- I hope you don't mind, I'm kinda copyediting some of this article. human
Contents |
[edit] Pseudolaw and conspiracy theories
Where is the proof that there is not a new world order? Elassint Throw things at me 14:59, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- Same place where I keep the proof that there is no god and no invisible pink unicorns as well. tmtoulouse oppress 15:01, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- HMMM. You seem to think that the New World Order revolves around magic and stuff. Well, what do you think the war on terror is for? Elassint Throw things at me 15:04, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- No, merely pointing out that "where is the proof that such and such does not exist" is not really a valid argument. It's the whole proving a negative problem. The burden of proof is on the person proposing the existence. The default position is one of skepticism. tmtoulouse oppress 15:08, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- There is proof that there is a New World Order right in front of your eyes. Its called the "War on terror" while it would be more appropriately called the "War on our freedoms."Elassint Throw things at me 15:18, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- In what way is this proof of a "new world order", what do you mean by "new world order"? tmtoulouse oppress 15:20, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- There is proof that there is a New World Order right in front of your eyes. Its called the "War on terror" while it would be more appropriately called the "War on our freedoms."Elassint Throw things at me 15:18, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- No, merely pointing out that "where is the proof that such and such does not exist" is not really a valid argument. It's the whole proving a negative problem. The burden of proof is on the person proposing the existence. The default position is one of skepticism. tmtoulouse oppress 15:08, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- HMMM. You seem to think that the New World Order revolves around magic and stuff. Well, what do you think the war on terror is for? Elassint Throw things at me 15:04, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Where is "new world order" in this article? human
17:19, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
- I guess it was implied by reference to the Masons and Illuminati. *shrug* tmtoulouse oppress 17:25, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
If there was a single conspiracy controlling everything, one would hope they'd do a better job of it than the mess we see now. --SockOfGulik 17:32, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
[edit] High profile pseudolawyers
And no link to User:AmesG? (that might have crossed the line. If Ames wants, he can give me a block. But not a long one.) Bohdan 16:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- Nah, that wouldn't be right. AmesG ain't high profile. (That'll probably get me blocked as well.) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:05, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- A month later, and Ames hasn't objected. I will add him, with a note that he is only low profile, as you pointed out. user talk:Bohdan 17:29, 21 January 2008 (EST)
- AmesG is a prepseudopod, he's still in school. Sorry. human
17:37, 21 January 2008 (EST)
- AmesG is a prepseudopod, he's still in school. Sorry. human
Yeah dude I'm not a lawyer yet! Once I am I hope as|€}*fly is still around to sue us.-αmεσ (blackguard) 17:54, 21 January 2008 (EST)
[edit] Pseudolaw, Pseudo law, Pseudo-law
Which is it do you think? tmtoulouse oppress 16:50, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well, at least for enwiktionary-20080613-page.sql.gz, almost all "pseudo*" words have no space or hyphen in between. The only hyphenated ones are pseudo-random, pseudo-anglicism, pseudo-science, and the only spaced one is pseudo cereals. By comparison, the other 135 entries are closed compounds. --Toiretni 17:09, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
- The google test though has me wondering. tmtoulouse oppress 17:12, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's cleaner and more sensible to go straight to pseudoasdfjkl even when coining. "Pseudo" is not a very good word on it's own as a spaced modifier, and hyphenation is an evolutionary process in English - one step between a "modifier and a noun" and new unbroken word. JHMO, of course. ħuman
17:21, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
- Google's search syntax makes this unfortunately complicated.
- It's cleaner and more sensible to go straight to pseudoasdfjkl even when coining. "Pseudo" is not a very good word on it's own as a spaced modifier, and hyphenation is an evolutionary process in English - one step between a "modifier and a noun" and new unbroken word. JHMO, of course. ħuman
- The google test though has me wondering. tmtoulouse oppress 17:12, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
"pseudo law" 2330 ghits 309 unique ghits "pseudo-law" 2330 ghits 313 unique ghits "pseudolaw" 268 ghits 67 unique ghits
- The problem is that the search results for "pseudo law" and "pseudo-law" contain hits for all three variations. Nonetheless, you're correct, you can still conclude that "pseudo-law" + "pseudo law" = ~2000ghits, and thus at least one of those has > 268ghits.
- Still, that's a pretty small sample size. And I usually go with what the dictionaries say, but I'm an evil prescriptive linguist like that. --Toiretni 17:29, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
¶ I am Bernard Sussman, the author of IDIOT LEGAL ARGUMENTS. It was not written for the ADL, but for the Militia Watchdog in 1995, and then moved to ADL's website when the head of Militia Watchdog was hired by the ADL. I made a correction.
[edit] Missing references
Theres not enough references in this essay. It's an interesting article and very informative but many whole paragraphs, arguments and points went completely unreferenced. It's an enjoyable read, much of which I'd like to believe. — Unsigned, by: 89.126.7.176 / talk / contribs