... Reader Victor Lam moves that [Anderson's] Law be changed to the Bernard Francis Law. I emphatically second that. The motion is moved and seconded. If Mr. Anderson agrees, I think it should henceforth be called the Bernard Francis Law or, alternatively, the Cardinal Law. What say you?So, what say you? Should Anderson's Law instead be known as "the Cardinal Law"?
Honestly, I don't think it fits. Apart from not wanting to have something that originated here associated with that reprobate, let's not forget that Cardinal Law ACTUALLY DID (or aided and abetted) what Anderson's Law predicts someone will mention in an ad hominem fashion to distract from a completely unrelated discussion.
When someone inevitably mentions the scandal in a discussion completely unrelated to the scandal, is throwing Cardinal Law's name into the mix actually likely to steer the discussion back on course?
At the risk of being overly frank, Hell no!
ReplyDeleteAnderson's Law forever!
I agree that it's a bad idea to rename it. In fact, the idea of renaming it a wierd validation of the law, because there was no real reason to drag +Law's name into the matter to begin with!
ReplyDeleteBTW, I also formulated a law like it; alas, you beat me to it by about three years. I offer two corollaries, though:
Layne's Corollary 1: When the scandals are used as a comparative, the comparison will be not only invalid but far-fetched.
Layne's Corollary 2: The earlier in the discussion the scandals are mentioned, the greater the probability the rest of the discussion will follow the mentioner down a rabbit hole.
Thanks, Paul!
ReplyDelete"... the idea of renaming it a wierd validation of the law, because there was no real reason to drag +Law's name into the matter to begin with!"
ReplyDeleteExcellent point!
And your corollaries are SPOT ON, especially the second one.
Thanks!
What Paul said. It's yours. Own it!
ReplyDelete