Template:Ninth law of worker entropy: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''The JC’s ninth law of worker entropy''': as the number of people involved in negotiating a {{tag|contract}} goes up, the contract’s brevity, comprehensibility a...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''The [[JC]]’s [[ninth law of worker entropy]]''': as the number of people involved in negotiating a {{tag|contract}} goes up, the contract’s brevity, comprehensibility and utility ''goes down''. Therefore, the longer a negotiation continues, the more compendious and ''[[tedious]]'' will the fruit of that negotiation — the [[verbiage]], in the | '''The [[JC]]’s [[ninth law of worker entropy]]''': as the number of people involved in negotiating a {{tag|contract}} goes up, the contract’s brevity, comprehensibility and utility ''goes down''. Therefore, the longer a negotiation continues, the more compendious and ''[[tedious]]'' will the “[[fruit]]” of that negotiation — the [[verbiage]], in the vernacular — be, even as its meaningful commercial content will stay constant (or, more likely, ''decline''). | ||
Briefly stated, the paradox says this: however anal it may be to “[[Adding value|add value]]” through qualifications, clarifications, [[for the avoidance of doubt]]s, [[without limitation]]s and other forensic {{f|celery}}, once these “correctives” have been made it is even ''more'' anal to remove them again, seeing as, [[Q.E.D.]], they make no difference to the legal or economic [[substance]] of the agreement either way. So, inevitably, one won’t [[I’m not going to die in a ditch about it|die in a ditch about it]], however appealing by comparison that experience might, to a [[prose stylist]], seem, and the agreement will silt up to the point where its original intent is hard or impossible to make out. | Briefly stated, the paradox says this: however anal it may be to “[[Adding value|add value]]” through qualifications, clarifications, [[for the avoidance of doubt]]s, [[without limitation]]s and other forensic {{f|celery}}, once these “correctives” have been made it is even ''more'' anal to remove them again, seeing as, [[Q.E.D.]], they make no difference to the legal or economic [[substance]] of the agreement either way. So, inevitably, one won’t [[I’m not going to die in a ditch about it|die in a ditch about it]], however appealing by comparison that experience might, to a [[prose stylist]], seem, and the agreement will silt up to the point where its original intent is hard or impossible to make out. | ||
Revision as of 12:10, 17 September 2020
The JC’s ninth law of worker entropy: as the number of people involved in negotiating a contract goes up, the contract’s brevity, comprehensibility and utility goes down. Therefore, the longer a negotiation continues, the more compendious and tedious will the “fruit” of that negotiation — the verbiage, in the vernacular — be, even as its meaningful commercial content will stay constant (or, more likely, decline).
Briefly stated, the paradox says this: however anal it may be to “add value” through qualifications, clarifications, for the avoidance of doubts, without limitations and other forensic celery, once these “correctives” have been made it is even more anal to remove them again, seeing as, Q.E.D., they make no difference to the legal or economic substance of the agreement either way. So, inevitably, one won’t die in a ditch about it, however appealing by comparison that experience might, to a prose stylist, seem, and the agreement will silt up to the point where its original intent is hard or impossible to make out.