Or any part thereof: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
It is also a satisfying way of “improving” the drafting of a those who themselves aggravate the [[negotiation]] process with leaden augmentations. We all know one<ref>Dammit we all know THOUSANDS.</ref>. | It is also a satisfying way of “improving” the drafting of a those who themselves aggravate the [[negotiation]] process with leaden augmentations. We all know one<ref>Dammit we all know THOUSANDS.</ref>. | ||
However pedantic your adversary may be, in a long document he will be ''bound'' to have missed a clarifying construction somewhere. It will be a cinch to find it. And then, “, [[or any part thereof]]” — on a [[rider]], ideally, for dramatic effect — is your slam dunk | However pedantic your adversary may be, in a long document he will be ''bound'' to have missed a clarifying construction somewhere. It will be a cinch to find it. And then, “, [[or any part thereof]]” — scrawled on a [[rider]], ideally, for dramatic effect — is your slam dunk; your dead fish shot in a barrel. You’ve got him. | ||
With this harmless, but spiteful, unguent, appended in the privacy of your own chambers with a lawyer’s flourish you can perform same pimp-roll that prompts a goal-scoring footballer’s [[Swept-back wing knee-slide|swept-back wing fighter-jet impersonation]] to the corner flag or a baseballer’s serial high-five as she ambles past the dug-out. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} |
Revision as of 12:51, 18 May 2022
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
Or any part thereof is a piece of flannel perfect for wiping clean the face of just the kind of cherub who would never get his little boat-race grubby in the first place. You know the kind: butter wouldn’t melt in his jumped-up little gob.
When it comes to face-washing, you may need a flannel, but to state it baldly and without qualification omits the undeniable fact you may not need the whole thing.
Now, as pathologically as they abhor elegance, legal eagles deplore a vacuum, and if you’re the sort who believes that a sum does not include each of its parts taken individually, this work-a-day expression is perfect for the pregnant pause you might otherwise have in your draft.
It is also a satisfying way of “improving” the drafting of a those who themselves aggravate the negotiation process with leaden augmentations. We all know one[1].
However pedantic your adversary may be, in a long document he will be bound to have missed a clarifying construction somewhere. It will be a cinch to find it. And then, “, or any part thereof” — scrawled on a rider, ideally, for dramatic effect — is your slam dunk; your dead fish shot in a barrel. You’ve got him.
With this harmless, but spiteful, unguent, appended in the privacy of your own chambers with a lawyer’s flourish you can perform same pimp-roll that prompts a goal-scoring footballer’s swept-back wing fighter-jet impersonation to the corner flag or a baseballer’s serial high-five as she ambles past the dug-out.
See also
References
- ↑ Dammit we all know THOUSANDS.