Danths law is also Parker's law? Help!--Waiting for Godot 17:08, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
- I misread it as Darth's law, which caused a spot of confusion. However, if this is the same as Parker's law, shouldn't it be a redirect? Totnesmartin 17:10, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
I wish we had capturebot earlier. There was this real classic wigo once, where ♥ K e n D o l l ♥ got absolutely schooled in a debate. The other guy later asked a completely different question, on a completely unrelated topic and instead of answering it ♥ K e n D o l l ♥ basically said "haven't you had enough of a beating today, like when I got you on such and such". To any impartial observer they would say he handed him his arse, but ♥ K e n D o l l ♥ not only believed he won, but thought he could gloat over it. - π 11:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Why was that removed? Fox News and the BNP are both far less relevant to Danth's Law. Bill O'Reilly claiming he won a debate with Richard Dawkins is a lot more what Danth's Law is about. - π 22:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Fox and BNP things are in from when I was expanding the examples. I could only think of two so decided to do the "declaring it so doesn't make it so" thing, which is a generalised form of Danth's Law. I think the Aiken was reverted because it's not strictly true that he said that, although it's not far off. O'Reilly vs Dawkins sounds good, but I can't a direct source of him "declaring" victory. I have the ScienceBlogs report on it but the video has since been pulled from YouTube. narchist 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Reading a bunch of Gamergate-related comment sections, I can't help but wonder if there isn't any corollaries to this law. Namely:
-If someone claims that there's 'tons of evidence' to support his beliefs, there likely isn't. -if someone claims to have used 'fair and balanced arguments', he likely hasn't.