THE THREAD!!!

[Chickenboy]

INP. [8D]

[Chickenboy]

Sorry for the interruption.

[Chickenboy]

I was saying...

[Chickenboy]

The third rule about Fabers was...

[Chickenboy]

...[&:]

[Chickenboy]

Aww hell, I can't remember. [:D]

[Chickenboy]

Maybe something about brushing one's teeth?

[Chickenboy]

Or tipping the pizza guy?

[Chickenboy]

Maybe the third rule about Fabers is also "You do not talk about Fabers!" ?

[Chickenboy]

But that seems sort of redundant, doesn't it?

[Chickenboy]

I mean, what's to stop there from being an infinite number of rules on Fabers?

[Chickenboy]

All of them saying exactly the same thing...

[Chickenboy]

Would make for pretty boring reading, I think you'd all agree.

[Chickenboy]

Maybe the third rule on Fabers is that "There is no third rule on Fabers!"

[Chickenboy]

But then why the negating language at all?

[Chickenboy]

By that logic, couldn't there also be a fourth rule on Fabers?

[Chickenboy]

And the fourth rule on Fabers would also be, "There is no fourth rule on Fabers!"

[Chickenboy]

But again, that would be redundant.

[Chickenboy]

Unless of course, one gave rule #3 a miss and went straightaway into Faber rule #4...

[Chickenboy]

So, rule number three on Fabers is: "There is no rule #3 on Fabers!"