Quick note on the Alexandra Moore remark, and Johnny’s comment: “the exception that proves the rule” is actually a valid expression, but one that’s usually applied incorrectly, to suggest that the existence of a notable exception implies that the rule holds otherwise (bollocks, I say!). Some others interpret it such that “prove” means “test,” as in “proving grounds.” I used to think that, and it makes more sense than the first, but it’s not correct either.

There are several good articles on this floating around (just google the phrase), but basically what the phrase actually means is that the explicit mention of an exception suggests that some rule applies otherwise. For instance, “No Left Turn, 7 AM – 7 PM” would imply that all other times, you can turn left. It refers to “rule” in the legal sense, not in the scientific sense. Johnny is correct in that “the exception to the rule” is much closer to what Reese meant.

Sorry if that was boring, but now you know, and knowing is the half the battle. And the next time some git pulls this phrase on you after you’ve blown his argument to hell and back, you’ll be able to shoot him down further. Just don’t mention that you read about it while looking at tits.