I never said you couldn’t: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
A general approach which might fortify you should you wish to strike [[incluso]]s from your documents: imagine trying to argue the counter-proposition before a court, without willing the ground open up and swallow you. Thus: | A general approach which might fortify you should you wish to strike [[incluso]]s from your documents: imagine trying to argue the counter-proposition before a court, without willing the ground open up and swallow you. Thus: | ||
:“Your honour, it says “in writing”. But the defendant only sent me an ''email''!” <br> | :“Your honour, it says “in writing”. But the defendant only sent me an ''[[email]]''!” <br> | ||
:“I see. And how did the defendant communicate in that email?” <br> | :“I see. And how did the defendant communicate in that email?” <br> | ||
:“Well, it sent me an email.” <br> | :“Well, it sent me an email.” <br> | ||
Revision as of 13:04, 5 December 2017
A kind of profound ontological uncertainty which leads to proliferating inclusos and for the avoidance of doubts, is the lawyer’s reluctance to grasp a simple proposition: You don’t have document what you are not obliged do in a legal contract. In the absence of a contract you are not obliged to do anything.
Which brings us to Nasty. In The Young Ones,[1] just before The Damned kicked off a boisterous rendition of their punk classic Nasty, Mike and Vyvyan agonised over their failure to get their new video recorder working. It is a parable for today’s uncertain times.
- Mike: Maybe you shouldn’t have poured all of that washing-up liquid into it.
- Vyvyan: It says here, “ensure machine is clean and free from dust”.
- Mike: Yeah, but it don’t say “ensure machine is full of washing-up liquid”.
- Vyvyan: Well, it doesn’t say “ensure machine isn’t full of washing-up liquid”.
- Mike: Well, it wouldn’t would it? I mean, it doesn’t say “ensure you don’t chop up your video machine with an axe, put all the bits in a plastic bag and bung them down the lavatory.”
- Vyvyan: Doesn’t it? Well maybe that’s where we’re going wrong.
This is the lawyer's take on that old philosophical adage: the onus of proof is on the person making an existential claim.
A general approach which might fortify you should you wish to strike inclusos from your documents: imagine trying to argue the counter-proposition before a court, without willing the ground open up and swallow you. Thus:
- “Your honour, it says “in writing”. But the defendant only sent me an email!”
- “I see. And how did the defendant communicate in that email?”
- “Well, it sent me an email.”
- “So you say. And was the email in the form of an animated GIF or something?”
- “No.”
- “Was it in the form of a series of depictions of semaphore flags which, when taken together, spelt out a message somehow non-verbally?”
- “No, m’lud.”
- “Well, then How was it articulated, Mr. Amwell?
- Inaudible mumbling.
- “Speak up, I can’t hear you.”
- “It was in words, your honour.”
- “Writing then, wouldn’t you say?”
- “No, your honour. Words.”
- “Words?”
- “Yes. Words.”
- “And are you suggesting that “words”, spelling out a message, albeit contained in a purely electronic medium, somehow do not amount to “writing”?”
- “Permission to run for the hills, your honour.”
- “Granted, Mr. Amwell. Flee!”
Plain English Anatomy™
Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings