This one I like :D Yak yak! לול 15:25, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
- I like it, and it has infinite possible regressions, like Schwartz's Corollary (Anyone who resorts to the argument that anyone who resorts to the argument that "whoever resorts to ... ... has automatically lost the debate." has automatically lost the debate)
I suppose that this is a suitable time to come out of the closet and admit that I was BrianCo on CP - one of TK's favorite editors - until I got blocked. (No point trying to find vandalism, Lulz, I was bona fide.) God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:35, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
- I bet that closet was crowded over there! humanbe in 15:41, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Should this be rewritten as "Whoever resorts to "whoever resorts to ... has automatically lost the debate" has automatically lost the debate." or something more along those lines (i.e., symmetry)? It would be more recursive if it were the same thing in both the inner and outer segment (I ask because I don't know if this is a direct quote). ThunderkatzHo! 00:08, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
- Yes. ("Anyone" vs. "whoever") and we, as RWers, should also recurse it to at least six levels deep, with our madd wicki skillz. ħuman 02:35, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Since this is so damn recursive, we should either discard it, or simplify it into Ganon's Law (from the Philips CD-I version of LoZ) essentially stating "You will DIE!" or in a more calmer, safer form, "You will LOSE!"
>Who is Brian Cohen? >Where was this law coined? >What sparked it?
I can't seem to find anything from June 2007 about this law. Maybe it's been lost to time, but I would like to know the history. — Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk / contribs 18:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)