interesting.
i’ve never bothered to specify- it’s far too tedious putting a [sic] in front of colloquialisms, figuratively speaking. I’ve always treated the “prove” in that statement as saying: “proof or evidence of the existence of a rule” which is what the general public understands it to mean. Though completely at odds with the rules of logic that the statement originates from, the phrase basically means that if you can find a single exception to an established rule, it somehow authenticates the rule.
In other words, my use of the statement is wrong, but appropriate. Since you already knew that, because everyone knows that, I assume that you have a personal peeve about the phrase and/or others like it and were using a roundabout method to criticize?

ps: I’m not %100 on alignment classifications, but I fall somewhere on the Chaotic end of the spectrum when it comes to grammar, spelling, language and communication in general. I punctuation nazi when it’s bound to get a rise, I chameleon my vocabulary to suit the setting, i make up words because someone has to, I verb nouns, and was excommunicated from the Church of the Dali Comma for being “impeccably insane” along with demanding that she admit to the rest of the class that the Transcendentalists were on nifty hallucinogens.

In other words, i love the rules, love breaking them, and remain completely shameless about both.
What do you think, Chaotic Neutral? Can you be Evil as it pertains to grammar? I’d say Good, but I’m pretty sure I violated some sort of moral code when I used “sesquipedalian” at a fourth grader.