Interesting; based on your post (#14 in this thread, IIRC) I might have asked what law school you graduated from (or at least attended). And for the record, I graduated from one, so you’d at least do a good job of playing one on TV.
And let the record reflect that’s meant to be something of a non-backhanded compliment.
Pure elephant’s-child syndrome, I’m afraid. Or, as the young ladies in “The Gondoliers” put it, “Everything is interesting, / Tell us, tell us all about it.”
Snopes (or, more accurately, Snopes’ wife) addresses the issue:
They come to the same conclusion as The Master – that it means the existence of explicit exceptions confirms that the rule applies in all other cases.
I could do without the snarky “(but not for the reason you think)” parenthetical, however. =)