Talk:Pseudolaw

	This Pseudolaw related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

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.) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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)

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

Pseudolaw, Pseudo law, Pseudo-law

Which is it do you think? tmtoulouse ^provoke 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 ^provoke 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.

"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

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?

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...

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)

Another non-court

This was in the news - does the FPC - for which there are a number of entries in reputable sources, this being possibly the only UK mention warrant a RW page/sub-entry? Anna Livia (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)