RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $6000Goal: $6000

Talk:Pseudolaw

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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 persecute 14:50, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
I hope you don't mind, I'm kinda copyediting some of this article. humanUser talk:Human 17:22, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Pseudolaw and conspiracy theories[edit]

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 persecute 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 persecute 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 persecute 15:20, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Where is "new world order" in this article? humanUser talk:Human 17:19, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I guess it was implied by reference to the Masons and Illuminati. *shrug* tmtoulouse persecute 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)

High profile pseudolawyers[edit]

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. humanUser talk:Human 17:37, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah dude I'm not a lawyer yet! Once I am I hope as|€}*fly is still around to sue us.-αmεσ (ninja) 17:54, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Pseudolaw, Pseudo law, Pseudo-law[edit]

Which is it do you think? tmtoulouse persecute 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 persecute 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:21, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Google's search syntax makes this unfortunately complicated.
"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. — Unsigned, by: 173.25.202.242 / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing references[edit]

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

Berner?[edit]

Where did the quoted Facebook meme text come from? Because it's the "Bern" convention, not "Berner".

I don't want to mock the original meme-creator and meme-sharers unfairly, if a RationalWiki editor added the misspelling. Vivisectionist (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

According to my counsel...[edit]

All federal judges are members of an obscure sect of the Freemasons. There is a secret word that, when uttered, forces the judge to rule in your favor, then go to a secret location to paddle themselves in a secret ceremony. I’d tell you what the word is, but then I’d have to kill you.

I spoke to the writers of that NewsRadio episode (“Rose Bowl”) a few years later, and they regretted not making a joke about Admiralty Law, but their excuse was that Art Bell wasn’t carried on WNYX, so Joe Garelli didn’t get all the truth that was out there. (It was the 90s, long before Facebook, and only nerds were on Usenet, so the only other alternative for conspiracies, aliens, crank physics, and general nonsense was mail-order pamphlets.) —107.77.212.98 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)