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

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(+1)
(+1)
Line 36: Line 36:
 
*[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?"]
 
*[http://spectator.org/articles/62987/can-king-v-burwell-revive-economy "Can King v. Burwell Revive the Economy?"]
 +
*"Dylann Storm killed 9 people in a church. Like many atheists, he was a loner. Was he an atheist?"
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 00:19, June 21, 2015

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

Possible examples

References