Mark-up: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
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]].
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. ''(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]].
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 it’s fundamental arbitrariness.  
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 it’s fundamental arbitrariness.  
Line 11: Line 13:
Both sides will walk away declaring victory, but silently resenting the disappointing but pragmatic middle ground they have found.
Both sides will walk away declaring victory, but silently resenting the disappointing but pragmatic middle ground they have found.


3. (''~ 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]].
In the analogue days, mark-up found its voice in spidery handwritten annotations, balloons, glyphs and [[Rider|riders]] defacing carefully-typed pages of copy hard enough to decrypt in their native form, and  then faxed between institutions, making it harder still.<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,
 


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Redline]]
*[[Redline]]
*[[Deltaview Force: An Opco Boone Adventure]]
*[[Inhouse legal team of the year]]
*[[Inhouse legal team of the year]]
{{ref}}

Revision as of 10:31, 14 October 2022

Office anthropology™
File:Hindenburg.jpg
The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Mark-up
/mɑːk ʌp/ (n.)

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 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 is an impenetrable melange of passives, passive-aggressives, redundancies, flannel and non-sequiturs injected into a perfectly sensible contract by a perfectly tedious 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 eagles, 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 it’s fundamental arbitrariness.

The process of counter-sniping at idiotic, haughty positions has a cleansing effect. As the blinds, battlements and barricades are gradually shot away, leaving just the serial absurdities behind, each follows the same slow, careful process of reversing, the way one descends a rickety ladder, shouting gleefully, but with ebbing enthusiasm, as they go and by the bottom the debate has reduced into petulant snickering: correcting split infinitives, interposing redundancies, clarifying the already plain, helpfully particularising the general and addending for the the satisfaction of having the last word , 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 riders defacing carefully-typed pages of copy — hard enough to decrypt in their native form, and then faxed between institutions, making it harder still.[1] Since legal employers have discovered they can and should pay their lawyers to type after all,


See also

References

  1. The process was not without its serendipities: the Biggs hoson was discovered this way.