Talk:Skitt's law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Merging this with other like minded articles may be a good idea but would be problematic when it comes to naming. A possible solution would be to rename it to a generic such as "The grammer curse" or somethng similar but more catchy, then to go on and list the names of the merged articles so none has precidence over the others.
Contents |
[edit] Is it really a law?
A law is considered to be invariable (I think perhaps inviolable) for all observed circumstances. It seems unlikely that all criticisms of grammar or spelling on the internet contain grammar or spelling errors. It would more correctly be titled an observation.
- A law, especially when used humorously, need not be one. Consider Murphy's law, etc. Why, just look at most of the adages named after people. There is enough precedent, so keep ;) --Shreevatsa 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Refocus
Hey guys, get with the program. We're not here to discuss whether this item is misnamed and should be renamed "Skitt's Observation" or the "Grammer (sic) Curse".
Probably all these kinds of "laws" should be grouped under "laws of usenet" or some such title, with necessary redirects in place. Adrian
[edit] Sweet Justice?
Tober L'erroneous and Skitt Less would be an appropriate description for both, considering that both lead to unnecessarily repeated errors. If I am guilty of either of these curses in this post, I'd rather not know as this would cause me to become very redressed.
[edit] In favor
Is that what happens the second time you get a dressing-down?
Anyway, I'm in favor, and whichever one came first might be the best name (unless someone creates the Usenet laws article). And Skitt and I have exchanged the occasional Oy!. —JerryFriedman 00:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eror?
Can I assume the "eror" in Hartman's Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation is deliberate?
- My assumption as well. Needs a "(sic)". --Hurtstotouchfire 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lineage
- I've always been confused and curious as to why all these age-old hoary adages are given new names and seemingly treated as if they are original just because they are used on the internet. Thirty or forty years ago as a schoolchild I often heard (sometimes probably directed at me) a teacher say something along the lines of, "Don't criticize little Johnny's spelling/grammar/usage because you will make a mistake in your reply/paper/what-have-you." In short, why are we giving new names to old cliches? Is it just because they are "new" to the internet? No disrespect intended, just curious? Sir Rhosis 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is it really a law 2
3 quick points
1. These types of “laws” are only that in an ironic and jocular sense. They are part of a venerable tradition that goes way beyond usenet. Probably, but arguably, Parkinsons Law was the first, but there is always the very famous Catch 22.
2. And let’s not be snooty. These little aphorisms are a significant part of the pleasure of activities like usenet. And really,“Don't criticize little Johnny's spelling/grammar/usage because you will make a mistake in your reply/paper/what-have-you,is hardly the soul of wit, is it?
3. We are informed us that this page is a “stub”. Well, what do you want on what is a sort of mild professorial joke – a treatise? There are major world writers with less analysis in Wikipedia. What we have here is a perfectly comprehensible and comprehensive explanation. Why not leave it at that? Myles325a 08:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
