Category: Scholarship
FooBarr Follies
14 April: Update: a few days latter, Foobarr admitted its error, restored the post, and rescinded the ‘suspension’. It never explained why or how it made the errror.
Imagine that.
_________________________
28 March: I’m about to break a personal rule and mention Facebook in some context other than legal.
Some of you might be interested in knowing that, apparently, Em Zee Be’elzeebubbles has some standards, after all.
He’s not just the Lord of The Lowly Housefly.
FooBarr has sinbinned me for reposting the meme shown at the bottom of this post on the basis that it violates FooBarr’s Community Standards. FooBarr didn’t tell me what the violation was so I presume it must be accuracy, honesty and truth.
Imagine that.

DC
Possible Name Change
1 Pandemic reality: Since I’m trapped, realistically, in C eh N eh D eh for the foreseeable future; that is, probably 1 year at least, I’m considering adding to the name of this blog.
“The World According To A Snark: A Currently Canadian Edition”
2 On the proper pronunciation of: Toronto (pronounced with two “t”s, the second following the one “n”); right Mr. Featherstonehaugh; Mr Worstershire; Mr Worster? Mr Smtythe? Mr Ghoti?
August 4, 2020; Nov 10, 2020
Hanlon’s Razor – Corollaries for Law – #2 – Jabberwocky
The amount and opaqueness of judicial and practitioner jabberwocky varies directly with the speaker’s inability to explain, adequately, why the desired result is the legally required and better result.
Hanlon’s Razor: Corollaries for law – #1 – Intellectual Dishonesty
An orthodox statement of Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”
Legal corollary #1: Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by intellectual dishonesty.
Occams Razor, Hanlons Razor
This is a small test to see if anybody in the Canadian legal profession who ought to read this blog reads this blog and pays attention.
I doubt it – because the existence of this blog, and its usual content, is some evidence to the contrary – but I’m prepared to be surprised.
Consider this argument. Feel free to explain why it is flawed, if you think it is and believe you can.
If you can’t, then perhaps you’ll explain why you won’t accept it.