The law that any published comment correcting someone else's language will itself contain an error, is known to me as Muphry's law. Though I haven't investigated the history. I wasn't sure how to insert mention of it into this page.— Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
Wasn't it originally implied or stated in Godwin's Law, that whoever brought up Hitler or Nazis first, had lost the argument? Or is this an addendum? I'm just drawing from memory here, most likely from talk.origins — sorely missed, but they are still here, or should be, I tried to have a look at it just now, and the connection expired. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot: Had lost the argument unless it was necessary in context. You can't discuss much of 20. century history without referring to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and all sorts of other less than likable characters. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Godwin's Law was originally stated by Richard Sexton, 'round about the time of Linux 0.89, or maybe it was Java 0.89. I was distracted by the Christians riding around on dinosaurs outside my window, so it could have been both. I don't know, but that's how long ago it was. (Is. It is now long ago. At the time it was then now.)
- Mike Godwin was in the conversation someplace, and his quotation a few days later went viral. Acquired eponymousity syndrome.
A humour piece I saw a while back - With the phrase '8 out of 10 scientists say' you just have to find the right 8 scientists.
Time Cube Law and talk page discussions
How does the TC law apply to discussions on wiki talk pages?
Not the 'sequence of (42) discussions - someone "do" an archive' which happens regularly, but the 'excess of colon-indent and (reset) exchanges (sometimes on the WP Main Page talk page over 'so what, it will be gone in a day so it is not The End Of Civilisation As We Know It' topics). Anna Livia (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Saying that probability "increases exponentially" in this context is mathematical nonsense and is a cargo-cult attempt at appearing intelligent through use of jargon that the writer does not really understand (misuse of "exponentially" being a very common example of this). It would be more correct to say "the likelihood of the author not being a lunatic decays exponentially" or "the likelihood of the author being a lunatic approaches 1 asymptotically". — Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
Perhaps this should get a mention here? After all, the present-day Internet vastly accelerates the process of publishing, replicating, and mutating bullshit, while the filter bubbles and echo chambers it fosters ensure further obstructions to debunking attempts.