lawyer

The Internet has led to the development of a burgeoning field of legislation wherein amateur lawmakers seek, in the manner of Murphy's Law, to glibly describe certain aspects or observations regarding internet behaviour in general and, more specifically, debates and discussions on Usenet groups and internet forums.

Warning. Internet law tends neither to be logically rigorous nor evenly applied. It often commits fallacies. Invocation of individual laws is usually a time-saving device used to prevent one from being dragged into an argument with someone who will under no circumstance alter one's own opinion.

“ ” Whoever resorts to the argument that "whoever resorts to the argument that. "whoever resorts to the argument that. "whoever resorts to the argument that. "whoever resorts to the argument that. "whoever resorts to the argument that. has automatically lost the debate". has automatically lost the debate" . has automatically lost the debate". has automatically lost the debate" . has automatically lost the debate. " has automatically lost the debate.

Since the law recurses infinitely (that is, it wraps back on itself infinitely), it consists of "Whoever resorts to the argument that. has automatically lost the debate" wrapped around the law itself, and therefore can be simplified as "Whoever resorts to Cohen's Law has automatically lost the debate".

But this also leads to the situation of "Whoever resorts to whoever resorts to Cohen's Law has automatically lost the debate has automatically lost the debate"; such is the nature of infinite recursion. Drawing a parallel to truth and provability in systems of formal logic is left as an exercise to the reader.