83,057
edits
Mark-up: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|work|{{image|Or any part thereof|png|Stick ''that'' in your pipe and smoke it, [[Counselor]]}}}}{{d|Mark-up|/mɑːk ʌp/|n|}} | ||
A | 1. ''([[Brokerage]])'': A ''broker’s'' mark-up (or [[mark-down]]) is a [[dealer]]’s way of making money: the equivalent in a [[principal]] arrangement to [[commission]] paid to an [[agent]]. | ||
2. (''~ language)'': A way of coding ordinary text in a way that [[Machines are fungible|machines]] can understand. This works quite well sometimes: The internet runs on [[hypertext mark-up language]] — “[[html]]”— an acquired taste but one which any fule can understand with a little patience; the fabulous MediaWiki runs on wiki mark-up, which even dear old five-thumbed [[Jolly Contrarian]] can understand — but other adventures have been less successful. There are lawyers at Linklaters who still can’t communicate unemotionally, having coded the entirety of the [[2011 Equity Derivatives Definitions]]— remember those? No? — in [[Financial products Markup Language]]. | |||
3. ''(Institutionalised pedantry''): [[legal mark-up|''Legal'' mark-up]] is an impenetrable melange of [[passive|passives]], [[passive-aggressive]]s, [[redundancy|redundancies]], {{tag|flannel}} and [[non-sequitur]]s injected into a perfectly sensible {{tag|contract}} by a perfectly tedious [[mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. The sheer inscrutability of one’s mark-up is a criteria for [[inhouse legal team of the year]]. | |||
Legal mark-up, being the fossil record of a legal [[negotiation]] between [[legal eagle]]s, bears a striking similarity to a playground argument. It will start as a broad, wide-ranging, harangue; each side adopting fundamentally opposed positions largely for the sake of it, yet summoning commendable outrage at the other’s position, notwithstanding its fundamental arbitrariness. | |||
The process of counter-sniping at idiotic, haughty positions — even if ''with'' idiotic, haughty positions — has a cleansing effect: as the blinds, battlements and barricades are gradually shot away, leaving just the serial absurdities behind, each side follows the same slow, careful process of reversal, the way one descends a rickety ladder, shouting gleefully, but with ebbing enthusiasm, as she goes. By the bottom, the debate has reduced into petulant snickering: correcting [[Split infinitive|split infinitives]], interposing redundancies, [[For the avoidance of doubt|clarifying]] the already plain, helpfully particularising the general and addending the particular, all for the glum satisfaction of having had the last word{{strike||, and/or words, as the case may be}}. | |||
Both sides will walk away declaring victory, but silently resenting the disappointing but pragmatic middle ground they have found. | |||
In the analogue days, mark-up found its voice in spidery handwritten annotations, balloons, glyphs and [[Rider|riders]] with which opposing lawyers would deface carefully-typed drafts. These were hard enough to decrypt in their native form, but when faxed between institutions, became quite inscrutable.<ref>The process was not without its serendipities: the [[Biggs hoson]] was discovered this way.</ref> | |||
Since legal employers have discovered they ''can'' and ''should'' pay their lawyers to type after all — since they can thereby dispense with legal secretaries and [[Facsimile|fax]] room attendants — the “manuscript mark-up” has, alas, given way to the charmless and prosaic business of running [[Redline|redlines]]. | |||
===The [[Biggs threshold]]=== | |||
{{bold full stop}} | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Redline]] | |||
*[[Rider]] | |||
*[[Deltaview Force: An Opco Boone Adventure]] | |||
*[[Inhouse legal team of the year]] | *[[Inhouse legal team of the year]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||