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. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Rosenblum's First Law of Chocolate
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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)
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.
d hominem 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)
- 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)
- I think this article is bullshit and should be deleted host-paste. Or toot-sweet. ħuman
- 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.