As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
2. Poe’s Law
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.
If it exists, there is porn of it.
See also Rule 35: If no such porn exists, it will be made.
Any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself.
Or: the likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster."
In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses the argument immediately, and gets you laughed out of the room.
Whale.to is a conspiracy theory site which includes such items as the complete text of the anti-Semitic hoax Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as claims that Aids is caused by vaccination programmes, and that Auschwitz never happened. Clearly credible.
If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.
A person's mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be from having no opinion to having a wrong opinion.
The Second Law states: “Anyone who posts an argument on the internet which is largely quotations can be very safely ignored, and is deemed to have lost the argument before it has begun.”
Whoever resorts to the argument that ‘whoever resorts to the argument that... …has automatically lost the debate’ has automatically lost the debate.
The more exclamation points used in an email (or other posting), the more likely it is a complete lie. This is also true for excessive capital letters.
According to Pratchett, five exclamation marks is an indicator of "someone who wears their underwear on the outside"
You want more info? Go here.
Found via Neatorama