└ Tags: ,

Discussion (33)¬

  1. John says:

    One of your best, but perhaps only for those of us brought up in sectarian western Scotland.

  2. TB says:

    I LOL’d so hard, so true, and so good…

  3. TB says:

    John, you think only you are hard football fans? People also beat up people, chant like crazy and loot markets during a football rage over here…

    Good comic, however judging from the Author’s british origin, I’d like to remind him that people, regardless of nationality, always tend to be stupid to support the most ridiculous things in life, this time 20 rich,sweaty athletic fellows who chase a ball, and PAY money to see it! I’ll be damned if there isn’t a degree of homophobia in it. I’d only pay to see sweaty, voluptuous women chasing balls.

  4. Rob Miles says:

    I fully expect to be flamed for this, but here is a link to an explanation for the phrase “the exception that proves the rule.” Reading the above in this context, I’ve tried to decide if Mo used the expression correctly, and I’m pretty sure that he does not. In any event, a lot of people don’t know how to use the expression correctly, so hopefully this will educate them, even if it’s not strictly needed in this case.

  5. Joe Crawford says:

    For US audiences you could replace “Glasgow Rangers” with, say, “Dallas Cowboys” for essentially the same punchline.

    I very much enjoy your comic. Keep it up!

  6. Warren says:


    Mo doesn’t use the term properly. The more accurate transliteration of the Latin exceptio probat regulem is “the exception that tests the rule”.

    No exception can ever prove a rule; it’s logically impossible.

  7. Lachlan says:

    Others have got there before me, but a fairly schoolboy error in this one I’m afraid re. the “proving” of rules. Also a bit sectarian? IMHO the other lot are just as bad.

  8. louis says:

    rob, i agree w/ you. mo’s not using it properly.

    warren, the phrase would be clearer to english speakers if stated:

    an exception proves *a* rule. e.g. ‘lemonade free today’ implies that all other days, ‘except’ today, lemonade is not free. the stated exception of free lemonade means there is an unstated rule that applies on other days that lemonade is *not* free.

    so, your statement that an exception can never prove a rule is incorrect. it’s logically impossible for an exception to prove a rule for which itself is an exception, granted, but that isn’t what you wrote.

    my 2 cents.

  9. Mephisto says:

    Perhaps a really odd form of translation? In german, this phrase exists in almost the same way, and it is also logically impossible, but nevertheless used often.

  10. The exception does not prove the rule in question, it proves the rule that “for every rule there is an exception.”

  11. Uncle Roger says:

    Warren, et al, “No exception can ever prove a rule; it’s logically impossible.” — don’t you see, that’s the joke. Those who believe in religion are quite used to believing in the logically impossible.

    P.S., absolutely love the comic. Just wish I had the cajones to wear one of those shirts. 8^)

  12. Albert Ross says:

    Yew wanna come o’er to Ibrox and say that, Jimmy. Can yer mither sew?

  13. carolita says:

    And I guess the same goes for Mets fans!!!!! (sniff!)

  14. author says:

    Corrected. Thank you.

  15. eenauk says:

    Jesus and mo going into the science of religious and sporting folly! awesome. Keep up the good thinking.

  16. Jonathan says:

    WOOOOO!! People Power!! The Pedants are revolting!!!!

  17. JohnnieCanuck says:

    Of course we are. Nobody likes a pedant, especially other pedants.
    Pheasants, on the other hand are quite attractive.

    OTOH, changing the comic might mystify people following trackback links, etc.

  18. Andrew says:

    Note to TB, Joe and other Americans: I suspect you’re missing the *actually* religious connotations of being a Rangers fan, as opposed to a Celtic fan — not *metaphorically* religious — when you’re suggesting American Football comparisons.

    Hint: It’s a bit like Northern Ireland but without the guns and Semtex. (Or the peace treaties for that matter.)


  19. Uncle Roger says:

    I have to admit, I prefer the original — I think the logical fallacy of Mo’s assertion that they “prove” the rule better highlights the lack of thinking-it-through-ness of religion in general.

    Plus, I hate to see art changed to suit the whims (or logical accuracy) of the audience. 8^)

  20. IdahoEv says:

    To add to (and hopefully clarify) to the pedantry surrounding the sentence “The exception that proves the rule”.

    The correct modern translation of the latin is in fact “The exception that tests the rule”. proving the rule is a correct translation only in archaic english in which “prove” held the definition “to put to the test”. This older definition of “prove” survives today in the term “proving grounds”, generally meaning facilities where experiments and tests are conducted on weaponry.

    So the translation from the latin including the word “prove” has simply persisted longer than the definition of prove itself has.

    Excellent cartoon, BTW. Sadly as a north american I’m not familiar with the particular brand of Glaswegian, so the joke may not be quite as funny to me as i suspect it really is. 🙂

  21. Rob Miles says:

    Geez, try to show off a little and look what happens. I never expected anyone to actually agree with me, and I certainly didn’t think the author would consider it important enough to change. I feel so… so vindicated.

    And a little guilty, too.

  22. author says:

    I am a pedant too. I had no choice.

  23. Mags says:

    I can’t find Mo saying that at all! Are you sure we’re looking at the same Glasgow Rangers comic? It’s hilarious as always but don’t put words in the prophets mouth, please!

  24. tie says:

    funny how mo is reading ‘infidel’ by Ayan H 🙂

  25. But author dear, you did have a choice, you could of course have claimed that Mo got it wrong, not you. Keep it in mind for next time!

    (Funny, I scribbled a brief comment on exactly that passage from Tom Sutcliffe’s piece, but my similar example [that actually works on me] was [under exactly the right circumstances] folk music, especially old Civil Rights songs or labour songs or Spanish Civil War songs – or, ideally, all three in one. I’m a pushover for Springsteen doing Seeger songs. I was going to post the comment but ended up deciding it was too slight. But we do notice the same things, don’t we!)

  26. sirito says:

    Or, as I read in “Wha’s Like Us? – On the Unrealities of Being Scottish” –

    “If God did not exist it, Rangers and Celtic would have had to invent him.”

  27. Susannaaaa says:

    Well, you can’t really change “Glasgow Rangers” for an American football team. Rangers and Celtic fans are actually tied up in religion to an unbelievable degree. Rangers are the “protestant team” and Celtic the “catholic team”. People get stabbed by fans of one for wearing the others’ strip, and it all boils down to Irish catholic immigration to the west of Scotland and the xenophobia/religious bigotry exhibited by both sides.

  28. Lucifer says:

    basically that picture could be applied to Glasgow Celtic fans as well as they have a large moronic element as well mixed with their support for outlawed terrorist organisations like the ira, eta and the plo groups

  29. Chris says:

    Lucifer, well I seem to remember back in the 80’s and 90’s when Celtic made attempts to contact the other lot to try to make some headway in resolving the differences for the sake of the fans, safety and all that, which were all refused, and the chairman of the other lot, just got drunk and was recorded singing sectarian songs!! small point but at least we tried. BTW I know I haven’t referred to the dark side by name, but I am a horrible bigot after all!! haha

  30. dave says:

    Obviously the Barmaid supports Third Lanark.

  31. HaggisForBrains says:

    This cartoon is even more ironic now in view of the demise of the original Glasgow Rangers, although, unlike Third Lanark, they appear to have risen again (at least to the faithful), on the third day (or should that be third division).

  32. Topi says:

    Implication is not equivalnce.

    If there is a exception there has to be a rule, is an implication that doesn’t mean that every rule has to have exception. It only means that one cannot even speak about exceptions if there is no underlying rule.

    No parking on sundays, is an exception that tells us that the rule is: parking allowed.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.