Motion for new Oldsmoboat law....

[legoman666]

"If the thread title claims: "Oldsmoboat's law does not apply" or similar, then Oldmoboat's law does indeed apply."

 

[pontifex]

i think thats already a given part of the current law.

 

[purbeast0]

considering i've already seen that rule been broken quite a few times on here, i vote nay.

 

[darkxshade]

darkxshades law: when a thread is started to motion for a new law, it won't happen

 

[mugs]

Only oldsmoboat can make a new oldsmoboat's law. Otherwise it's not really oldsmoboats law, it's legoman666's law. I don't think legoman666's law will catch on. But I would be entirely in favor of giving someone a short vacation if they claim oldsmoboat's law doesn't apply and it does in fact apply.

 

[legoman666]

Originally posted by: mugs
Only oldsmoboat can make a new oldsmoboat's law. Otherwise it's not really oldsmoboats law, it's legoman666's law. I don't think legoman666's law will catch on. But I would be entirely in favor of giving someone a short vacation if they claim oldsmoboat's law doesn't apply and it does in fact apply.

good point

 

[pontifex]

so lets say 50% of the people who view a thread that says Oldsmoboat's law deosn't apply say that it indeed does not apply and is actually funny, does it really apply? isn't it a bit subjective?

 

[Electric Amish]

Oldsmoboat's corrollary

 

[QED]

I think what you are looking for is perhaps a generalized Oldsmoboat's Law. Maybe something like:

"If a thread topic or subject line makes a broad but bold claim, that claim will be found untrue or unsubstantiated in the post."

Thus, the Oldsmoboat Law we love and know , as well as your proposed new law, would thus be specific applications of the Generalized Oldsmoboat Law.

This new law would also apply to such favorite recurring thread titles as "My parents are being unreasonable", "[insert title here] is the best [movie/song/book] EVAR!", and "NOT P&N related!" (when used in reference to ATOT thread specifically discussing political issues or personalities).

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: pontifex
so lets say 50% of the people who view a thread that says Oldsmoboat's law deosn't apply say that it indeed does not apply and is actually funny, does it really apply? isn't it a bit subjective?

Since it's my law, I have final say... :laugh:

 

[imported_Lothar]

So what is your final say?

Motion granted or motion denied?

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: QED
I think what you are looking for is perhaps a generalized Oldsmoboat's Law. Maybe something like:

"If a thread topic or subject line makes a broad but bold claim, that claim will be found untrue or unsubstantiated in the post."

Thus, the Oldsmoboat Law we love and know , as well as your proposed new law, would thus be specific applications of the Generalized Oldsmoboat Law.

This new law would also apply to such favorite recurring thread titles as "My parents are being unreasonable", "[insert title here] is the best [movie/song/book] EVAR!", and "NOT P&N related!" (when used in reference to ATOT thread specifically discussing political issues or personalities).

I like the sound of this.

 

[legoman666]

Originally posted by: clamum

Originally posted by: QED
I think what you are looking for is perhaps a generalized Oldsmoboat's Law. Maybe something like:

"If a thread topic or subject line makes a broad but bold claim, that claim will be found untrue or unsubstantiated in the post."

Thus, the Oldsmoboat Law we love and know , as well as your proposed new law, would thus be specific applications of the Generalized Oldsmoboat Law.

This new law would also apply to such favorite recurring thread titles as "My parents are being unreasonable", "[insert title here] is the best [movie/song/book] EVAR!", and "NOT P&N related!" (when used in reference to ATOT thread specifically discussing political issues or personalities).

I like the sound of this.

seconded.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Lothar
So what is your final say?

Motion granted or motion denied?

On whether the law applied or not.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: legoman666

Originally posted by: mugs
Only oldsmoboat can make a new oldsmoboat's law. Otherwise it's not really oldsmoboats law, it's legoman666's law. I don't think legoman666's law will catch on. But I would be entirely in favor of giving someone a short vacation if they claim oldsmoboat's law doesn't apply and it does in fact apply.

good point

I second this motion

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: legoman666

Originally posted by: mugs
Only oldsmoboat can make a new oldsmoboat's law. Otherwise it's not really oldsmoboats law, it's legoman666's law. I don't think legoman666's law will catch on. But I would be entirely in favor of giving someone a short vacation if they claim oldsmoboat's law doesn't apply and it does in fact apply.

good point

I second this motion

I mjuszczak this notion.

 

[MaxDepth]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: legoman666

Originally posted by: mugs
Only oldsmoboat can make a new oldsmoboat's law. Otherwise it's not really oldsmoboats law, it's legoman666's law. I don't think legoman666's law will catch on. But I would be entirely in favor of giving someone a short vacation if they claim oldsmoboat's law doesn't apply and it does in fact apply.

good point

I second this motion

I mjuszczak this notion.

I second that emotion. :music:

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: MaxDepth

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: legoman666

Originally posted by: mugs
Only oldsmoboat can make a new oldsmoboat's law. Otherwise it's not really oldsmoboats law, it's legoman666's law. I don't think legoman666's law will catch on. But I would be entirely in favor of giving someone a short vacation if they claim oldsmoboat's law doesn't apply and it does in fact apply.

good point

I second this motion

I mjuszczak this notion.

I second that emotion. :music:

I motion that second.

 

[eldorado99]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: MaxDepth

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: legoman666

Originally posted by: mugs
Only oldsmoboat can make a new oldsmoboat's law. Otherwise it's not really oldsmoboats law, it's legoman666's law. I don't think legoman666's law will catch on. But I would be entirely in favor of giving someone a short vacation if they claim oldsmoboat's law doesn't apply and it does in fact apply.

good point

I second this motion

I mjuszczak this notion.

I second that emotion. :music:

I motion that second.

That motion I second.

damn, beat me to it.

 

[sandorski]

Oldsmoboat needs to find the Universal Oldsmoboat Law. Multiple Laws just won't do.

 

[GasX]

My attempt at an Oldsmoboat's Unifying Thread Theory:

Just because mommy told you you were special does not mean you are really THAT unique or THAT gifted. If you see something funny on the internet, it is a FACT that a ton of people saw it before you and that many of them found it as retarded as you found it funny. Posting your find to share it with your fellow ATOTers is a good thing. Prefacing your post with bold claims that suggest violation of irrefutable universal truths is more proof of the truth than not.

edit: note this has no value until reviewed, stolen, reworked, improved upon and restated in better language by Oldsmoboat himself.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: pontifex
so lets say 50% of the people who view a thread that says Oldsmoboat's law deosn't apply say that it indeed does not apply and is actually funny, does it really apply? isn't it a bit subjective?

Since it's my law, I have final say... :laugh:

Precisely

 

[Juno]

juno's law demands captions.

 

[legoman666]

Originally posted by: Juno
juno's law demands captions.

Jewno?

 

[Juno]

Originally posted by: legoman666

Originally posted by: Juno
juno's law demands captions.

Jewno?

jew-what? that's how you pronounce my name...