Graham's First Law of Internet Discussion;
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a generalisation being taken as a universal law approaches 1"
For example, if I was to start a discussion with "Most cyclists obey red lights", sooner or later, someone would think they had proved me wrong by pointing out that they once saw a cyclist ride through a red light.
Graham's Second Law of Internet Discussion;
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of an irrelevant simile approaches 1"
For example, if I was to start a discussion with "Cyclists should be allowed to ride on the pavement because cars make the roads too dangerous for them", sooner or later, someone would reply "That's like saying cars should be allowed to drive on the pavement because lorries make the roads too dangerous for them".
I think Hitler should be allowed to drive tanks on the pavement.
I think cyclists should be allowed to ride in back gardens because the tanks make the pavements too dangerous!
...and another one:
"If the purpose of starting a thread is to receive validation for one's actions, unilateral validation will never be forthcoming. Contributors to the thread will enjoy the sport of upsetting the OP who will be having a grumpy flounce because everyone else is in the wrong"
"If the purpose of starting a thread is to receive validation for one's actions, unilateral validation will never be forthcoming. Contributors to the thread will enjoy the sport of upsetting the OP who will be having a grumpy flounce because everyone else is in the wrong"
Unless said thread contains your three year old child riding a bike for the first time.
And another one
Eventually all long threads will contain a kitten pic
[img] 
[/img]
I'm honoured. 😀
Are you saying that cyclists aren't allowed to ride on the pavement?
That's like saying kittens shouldn't drive cars.