Even though I thought of the idea (and posted it here on the SDMB) years ago, I still named it after another Doper; it’s called Zev’s 614th Mitzvot.
Questions posed to message boards about practices in Orthodox Judaism are always posted on Shabbos, between sundown on Friday and Sundown on Saturday.
On my message board, there’s Sam’s Law:
As a thread grows longer, the probability of a Wal-Mart reference approaches one.
Any poster who accuses another poster of being a crybaby (in any way, including saying “waaaaa”) automatically loses the debate.
-tdn’s Law of Projected Infantilism
Any poster who insists that a phenomenon exists because a) you can’t prove it doesn’t and b) just because you haven’t seen it only proves that you are close-minded, is probably dead wrong.
-tdn’s Law of Orbiting Teapots
Originally posted by Swampwolf
That’s because NOBODY expects Nemo’s Law
D&R
MT
If you argue that there are alternatives to abortion, pro-abortion people will assume a worst-case scenario for every single one.
People who are categorically uninterested in belonging to a religion under any circumstances are the fullest of suggestions for how it ought to change its ways to meet with their approval.
As any discussion of weight-loss proceeds, the probability of someone presenting themselves as the unique victim of a strange medical condition that forces them to gain weight despite a daily ten-mile run and 500-calorie diet approaches 1.
I resemble that remark!
And I have the "Ask the Satanist thread " to prove it. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered so many uninterested customers suggesting the product shouldn’t even be on the shelf in one place before.
This is something I noticed and first described over twenty years ago: All customers, regardless of their intelligence outside the place of consumption, are idiots.
Henceforth to be known as Loki’s Observation.
And vice-versa.
In fact, here’s Wombat’s Postulate:
Any poster making a negative comment about George W. Bush will immediately be called a Clinton-lover and any poster making a negative comment about Bill Clinton will be immediately called a Bush-lover.
or, to abbreviate:
They just won’t let ya hate 'em both.
In any thread which even remotely refers to the lottery, someone will post a comment about the lottery being an “idiot tax”.
The ratio of thread views to thread posts in directly proportional to the amount of times the word ‘sex’ is used in the title.
WARGAMER’S LAW
Only pro-choice people use the term “anti-abortion” (which that group is) and only pro-life people use the term “pro-abortion” (which pro-choice people are not, with very rare exceptions).
Whenever you request a receipt at the drive thru for work related expenses the drive thru monkey will invariably roll their eyes and say " it is in the bag sir. "
If I forget to ask, there is never a fucking receipt in the bag. Never fails either.
Of course, because if I were “pro-choice” about wife-beating, I certainly would not be “pro-wife-beating”.
Now shall we let them have their thread back?
“If you have more material than you can possibly film, don’t add anything. And really, really don’t add utter CRAP!”
David Lynch’s Law (Cuz there’s two hours of my like I’m not getting back!)
According to this [thread=469489]thread[/thread], the producers of the Andromeda Strain remake needed this law. :rolleyes:
(Before people comment, these rules are ones I’ve developed for the Internet as a whole, and not just this site.)
Governor Quinn’s First Law on Political Posts:
In a thread were some sort of political scandal is being discussed that is clearly partisan or ideological in nature, a scandal connected to opponents of the party or ideology in question will be brought up. (This is related to rules already brought up, but developed independently from them.)
Governor Quinn’s Second Law on Political Posts:
The people who complain the most about the First Law tend not to be people who never used the First Law, but people who use it all the time.
Governor Quinn’s Third Law on Political Posts:
There is a direct and inverse relationship to the boldness about claims involving electoral success of a candidate, idea, or party in an election and how well-informed said poster is on politics as a whole.
Governor Quinn’s Fourth Law on Political Posts:
Discussions of historic politics of interest to a particular person will always be timed so that those with an interest will be in no position to immediately answer the question.
“The chance of a parent disiplining his unruly child in a public setting is often, but not always, directly proportional to the number of witnesses to the child’s behavior.”
I’m not sure who I should attribute this to. Working at Walmart, I’ve seen parents ignoring their kids-gone-wild behavior until they realize someone else (usually me) is watching. Then I hear, “son, why you doing this? You know you NEVER act this way at home!” (huh? Bet me they do)
Love, Phil