Comments

  2. says

    And the Wikipedia entry cites PZ as some kind of trafficker or something. Trafficker in terminology?

    And congrats to Blake, now semi-famous forever.

  4. Zombie says

    Taking bets on how long before it gets proposed for deletion for non-notability?

  6. says

    Zombie:

    I was thinking “less than a day”, actually. If it were anybody else’s Law, my vote (or !vote, or whatever they’re called) would be a merge to some other article.

  7. says

    Well, I’ve done my initial part in keeping it alive. I’ll be sure to reference it when I comment on an appropriate topic.

  9. says

    Zombie’s right – it won’t last very long. But thanks to Bronze Dog, it will probably have to go through AFD, which it give it 5 days post-nomination. Pharyngula is a start – now could we get Dawkins to use it? Maybe someone here has a gig with NYTimes? Anyone? :)

  10. says

    Taking bets on how long before it gets proposed for deletion for non-notability?

    too late. it’s already been marked as such.

  11. divalent says

    I dunno; the problem with his law as currently formulated, is that (unlike Godwin’s Law) it does not have the element of time and/or amount of discussion altering the probability.

    Here’s Blakes law from wikipedia:
    “In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one.”

    It’s missing the cause-and-effect element. Should be something like “As the length of any discussion of atheism grows, the probablility …” (And it really should be “approaches one”)

    It might be better to propose it as “Blake’s corollary” to Godwin’s law, and adopt that law’s cause-and-effect structure.

  13. Jsn says

    Someone needs to book you on The Colbert Report; do you have a book to promote? (remember: publish or perish) It’s only a matter of time before there are wanton PZ groupies, or do you have to fend off co-eds by the dozens already? Pygmies and dwarves(bwa haa haw)…

  15. says

    Some people just don’t understand what wikipedia is for.  I’ve made up terms before, and they aren’t on wikipedia either.  They kind of have to catch on first.

  17. Torbjörn Larsson, OM says

    Not bad for a head popping thought. I hope the meme doesn’t go extinct. (Especially if the unwikifying will occur – it should be a constraint on discussions.)

    Btw, there is a ‘corollary’ to “”Blake’s corollary” to Godwin’s law”: As the accumulated length of any office walks grows, the probability that a head pop occurs approaches one. :-P

  18. Torbjörn Larsson, OM says

    Not bad for a head popping thought. I hope the meme doesn’t go extinct. (Especially if the unwikifying will occur – it should be a constraint on discussions.)

    Btw, there is a ‘corollary’ to “”Blake’s corollary” to Godwin’s law”: As the accumulated length of any office walks grows, the probability that a head pop occurs approaches one. :-P

  19. Kseniya says

    Blake’s awesomeness knows no bounds! Outside of Wikipedia, I mean.

    I’d bat my eyelashes, or something, if I, you know, like, did that.

  20. Carlie says

    Shouldn’t the entry read “frequent commentator and Order of the Molly recipient Blake Stacey”?
    Someone with a Wikipedia account fix that, will ‘ya? I’m too lazy to register.

  22. says

    I just looked now, and thought “Wow, that’s incredibly conceited of PZ, to put this post up which links to the Pharyngula wiki entry”. Then I checked: they’ve just merged the entries. Poor Blake, being assimilated into the Pharyngula mind-hive.

    Someone with a Wikipedia account fix that, will ‘ya? I’m too lazy to register.

    And then go through the Pharyngula page and change all the spellings of Myers. It’s just not right, having so many correct spellings in one place.

    Bob

  23. Ginger Yellow says

    “Relative obscurity, known only for a kneejerk phrase on the web?”

    With apologies to Peter McGrath, you’re saying that this is Salem’s lot in life?