Difference between revisions of "Betteridge's law of headlines"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Possible examples: add quotation marks)
(+1)
Line 35: Line 35:
 
*[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112553966818328701 "Did Credit-Card Issuers Collude to Force Arbitration?"]--according to a 2014 decision by a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the answer is no
 
*[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112553966818328701 "Did Credit-Card Issuers Collude to Force Arbitration?"]--according to a 2014 decision by a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the answer is no
 
*[http://www.mccarthylawyer.com/2015/03/13/is-credit-card-arbitration-a-lousy-deal-for-the-consumer/ "Is Credit Card Arbitration a Lousy Deal for the Consumer?"]
 
*[http://www.mccarthylawyer.com/2015/03/13/is-credit-card-arbitration-a-lousy-deal-for-the-consumer/ "Is Credit Card Arbitration a Lousy Deal for the Consumer?"]
 +
*[http://spectator.org/articles/62987/can-king-v-burwell-revive-economy "Can King v. Burwell Revive the Economy?"]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 14:14, June 9, 2015

Betteridge's law of headlines states that headlines that end with a question mark can be safely answered "no".[1]

Possible examples

References