Friday, August 8th, 2008
|
|
11:34 pm
|
stele3
|
I haven't seen this anywhere in the wiki, or in older posts... therefore I present it for your judgment.
The Comparing Wands Wank Decree
Anyone who, in the course of commenting on a wank in Fandom Y, claims that it "makes Fandom X look sane!" shall be forced to read every damned article in the Fandom Wank wiki. Thereby putting to rest that age-old question: Who Is the Wankiest Of Them All?
(So named because usually, X = Harry Potter.)
|
|
(14 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Thursday, July 31st, 2008
|
|
5:03 pm - The Sheeple Law
|
zee
|
Any use of the word "sheeple" in a serious context automatically disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously again.
|
|
(25 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Monday, July 7th, 2008
|
|
10:16 pm
|
herongale
|
Herongale's First Law of TMI.
You're not a TRUE FAN unless you've beat off to the idea of your favourite character/characters at least once.
Herongale's Corollary.
All other activities of fandom are optional and are neither required nor rule out TRUE FANDOM.
*brought to you by fine IRC crack chat everywhere*
|
|
(6 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008
|
|
5:49 pm - Ghandi's Corollary
|
|
|
Sunday, June 8th, 2008
|
|
5:27 pm - Peachespig's Rule of Entitlement
|
mcity
|
The first entry in a series that sucked was always the first one after you, whoever you are, got way too emotionally invested in an unreasonable outcome. Always.
Created by peachespig, modified and reposted with permission.
EDIT: Velvet_mace rephrased it better than I did.
Canon starts getting sucky the installment after fans get way too emotionally invested in an unreasonable outcome.
|
|
(19 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Monday, May 19th, 2008
|
|
2:43 pm - Zee's Godwin Corollary
|
zee
|
Zee's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
In the context of Godwin's Law, George W. Bush is apparently the new Hitler. Therefore, the same rules apply to comparisons to G.W. as they do to comparisons to Hitler.
(Obvious exceptions for genuine comparisons of a politician or political candidate's policies to those of the Bush administration's.)
|
|
(10 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Saturday, March 8th, 2008
|
|
12:35 pm - Axiom of Rose-Tinted Glasses
|
reeve
|
Didn't see anything like this in the wiki, so here goes:
The length of time that passes between actual consumption of a piece of media and the present is directly proportional to a fan's nostalgia for said media.
The formula:
media + (this year - year in which media was last consumed) / fan's initial love = fan's current nostalgia
Corollary: The inverse holds true if a fan consumes the same piece of media again after a length of time.
Thusly:
fan's initial love / media + (this year - year in which media was last consumed) = fan's current nostalgia
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Monday, March 3rd, 2008
|
|
9:20 am - Connor's Law
|
mcity
|
If someone is clearly using a term for an oppressive political system that is not Nazism to avoid activating Godwin's Law, Godwin's Law is immediately invoked.
You guys are Fascists.
-Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008
|
|
8:42 pm
|
|
roachspit
|
Please excuse me for intruding, but I thought these would make nice additions. In a pointing-out-the-blindingly-obvious kind of way.
The Galileo Fallacy: The fact that everyone disagrees with you does not make you Galileo; just because an idea is unpopular doesn't make it right.
The Gadfly Corollary: The fact that other people are pissed off about what you've just said does not make your statement automatically correct; you may just be an asshole.
Both are paraphrases and originated in this blog post.
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Saturday, December 22nd, 2007
|
|
8:51 pm
|
isntitironic
|
I discovered an exception to Rule #2 (the 'creators don't care about your ship war' rule). It amused me, so I thought we might start a post for:
DOCUMENTED EXCEPTIONS TO RULE #2:
The Justice League and Justice League Unlimited TV shows - there's stuff on the DVDs where the writers admit to doing a certain number of things just to mess with the shippers. In fact, they actually use the word 'shippers'.
current mood: amused
|
|
(29 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Friday, November 23rd, 2007
|
|
9:56 am - Truther's law.
|
mcity
|
Anyone who uses the word "sheeple" in a non-ironic manner immediately loses.
EDIT 2: Jobs' Law
The above also applies to the pejorative use of the word "consumerist".
EDIT: Should I expand this to cover using "consumerist" as an insult?
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Friday, September 21st, 2007
|
|
2:14 pm - Lissy's Law!
|
rudemistress
|
Anyone who agrees with, takes seriously or otherwise supports anything that Lissy aka Lysette aka The Batshit Queen of FAP says will never have any credibility in any argument ever again.
|
|
(34 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Monday, July 9th, 2007
|
|
5:08 pm
|
|
|
Saturday, June 30th, 2007
|
|
9:19 am - Scotsman's Law.
|
mcity
|
Whenever someone defines what does or does not qualify someone for inclusion in the set of Real Xs, ("No real gamer would play the Wii!") the set in question will always include them.
Title needed.
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Thursday, June 21st, 2007
|
|
9:01 am - My very first contribution!
|
|
|
Tuesday, June 19th, 2007
|
|
2:01 pm - A corollary to Azalais' Carousel Law
|
bishounenhideto
|
I'd like to suggest a corollary to Azalais' Carousel Law:
Anyone under the age of 22 who says that anyone over the age of 22 who is still interested in yaoi fandom must be a pedophile should be put on the carousel.
Anyone claiming they'll stop liking yaoi or other fannish interests as soon as they reach over 22 because to do otherwise is to be a sad and pathetic person (and/or a pedophile) should retroactively be put on the carousel at 15.
In short, fandom does not only belong to self-righteous 14 year olds.
current mood: Mildly Amused
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Saturday, June 16th, 2007
|
|
5:29 pm - The Gay & Slippery Slope
|
harrylovesron
|
Presented for your approval. The idea was put forth by ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) pantyless_angel in this thread, and I reworded it. I searched the Wiki and couldn't find a law regarding this exact subject, but feel free to let me know if it's been done or you have a better name for it.
The Gay & Slippery Slope
In any discussion about homosexuality, gay relationships, and/or same-sex marriage, should one side compare one or more of those things to/argue that one of those things will lead to:
1. Rampant llegal and/or harmful activities such as illegal drug use, pedophilia, or bestiality
2. Legalizing marriage to one's close relatives, to pets/animals, or to inanimate objects
3. Threatening the rights of heterosexual couples and marriage
4. Destruction of the family unit in America
5. The eventual dying out or destruction of the human race;
The person who made the comparison automatically loses the argument and shall be thwacked over the head with (Link NSFW) this blunt instrument, wielded by a frothing, bug-eyed Lewis Black, until such time as sense is beaten into their head. Repeat beatings may be administered if the subject loses consciousness before sense enters. Actual penetration with said blunt instrument is permissable if the subject uses the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument in their comparison or claims that equal rights for homosexuals are "special rights".
ETA: Punishment amended at the suggestions of pastri_archy, ladybirdsleeps, and sorchar.
ETA 2: Number 5 on the list added per firebad's suggestion.
|
|
(29 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Thursday, April 26th, 2007
|
|
12:49 am - Addendum to the Faux-Cred Card Ordinance.
|
tez
|
I need to add a corollary to The Faux-Cred Card Ordinance, courtesy of a rant my GF had about some people in her college classes. In a stunning instance of the stars coming into alignment, this exact situation just cropped up on otf_wank. Go figure. Therefore, I humbly present to the assembled of ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif) jurisimprudence for their consideration:
WAC 375.1.45.1. Faux-Authority Card Statute.
Anyone claiming to be an authority on the discrimination leveled towards a societal group by virtue of associating with/being descended from members of said group -- without actually being a member of the group themselves, or experiencing said discrimination firsthand -- will automatically lose the argument and be transported back to the 1800s for a crash course on segregation and racism.
Examples:
"I know all about homophobia. I have gay friends."
"I know all about racism. My boyfriend is half-black." (This was an actual argument point.)
"I know all about slavery! My ancestors were slaves!" (This was an actual argument point as well, by a girl with some Irish in her background.)
"I know all about discrimination! I'm descended from Pocahontas and a black slave!" (See wank mentioned.)
I consider it very eerie that I wrote this up in my JF a couple days ago and it suddenly became oh so apt.
current mood: *thud*
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Wednesday, April 25th, 2007
|
|
1:05 pm - Wiki Update!
|
lindentreeisle
|
Our delicious Jurisimprudence wiki is once again up to date. I also added some navigation links along the side to help you...navigate. If you have any suggestions for how to make the wiki better, please speak up!
Public editing is still open, so if you see mistakes or ommissions, feel free to fix them. Or if you don't want to, mention it to me or Tangentialone and we'll take care of it.
As a side note, there was apparently a problem where the search function was searching the page titles, but not the full text of pages. I got the Wikispaces staff to fix it, but this is evidently caused by an ongoing bug that they are still working on fixing. Bottom line, if you notice the search function going screwy again, please notify one of us so we can get it fixed.
current mood: Fantastico
|
|
(10 comments | comment on this)
|
|
Monday, April 23rd, 2007
|
|
8:53 pm - This one's probably been done...
|
isntitironic
|
The Laws of Uficuity:
1) No matter what subject is under discussion on a wank community, somebody will always find a way to relate it to a sexual fetish.
2) Once somebody has related the topic to a sexual fetish, somebody else will always claim they've read a fic like that.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
|