Talk:Rosenblum's First Law of Chocolate

Kind of a silly name for such an interesting observation. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd give a cite, but I don't know the name of the book it came from. --Gulik 03:24, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Can anyone figure out a way to link to this that is not contrived? human 20:40, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Would this still apply if someone worked for, I don't know, the CIA? Researcher 14:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

There are exceptions to every rule. But as a rule of thumb, it's quite accurate. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, putting the exact phrasing of the "law" into Google brings up some very interesting blog posts, but none are relevant. And a search for the title doesn't seem to bring up anything. It's a very good observation, and I'm sure it's been made somewhere else before, but we need to track down the most relevant title and formulation. ^narchist 08:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this article is bullshit and should be deleted host-paste. Or toot-sweet. ħuman 08:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It's an interesting observation, but given that the only pages that Google returns for a search on the title are RationalWiki pages, it doesn't sound like it's in general usage. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that's a slap at the Mars Corporation (the M&M's people, among other chocolaty products.) They are a notoriously secretive company. MDB (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)