Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions

Good luck in court with that one (view source)

Revision as of 16:52, 15 September 2020

156 bytes added , 15 September 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,883

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 A counterfactual proposition which ought to be put in service more often than it is, in defence of simple language and resistance of [[flannel]].
-[[Legal eagle]]s are nothing if not creative, though the forensic imagination bounds towards the paranoid, away from practical common sense at every opportunity. Every legal negotiator will find herself engaged in a fruitless argument about some hypothetical catastrophe ''which'' might arise if if a counterpart should willfully misconstrue the plain but general language of a contract. The difficulty of resisting this sort of passive-aggressive logic is articulated in the [[anal paradox]]
+[[Legal eagle]]s are nothing if not creative, though the forensic imagination bounds towards the paranoid, away from practical common sense at every opportunity. Every legal negotiator will find herself engaged in a fruitless argument about some hypothetical catastrophe ''which'' might arise ''if'' a counterpart should willfully misconstrue the plain but general language of a contract. The difficulty of resisting this sort of passive-aggressive logic is articulated in the [[anal paradox]], which the [[JC]] has since fully validated as the [[ninth law of worker entropy]].
-By way of example from a [[confidentiality agreement]]: one might expect the following pedantic addition to a simple definition: ''“'''Confidential information'''” means all information relating to to a party {{insert|or otherwise relating to that party’ or its affairs}}...''
+By way of example from a [[confidentiality agreement]]: one might expect the following pedantic addition to a simple definition: ''“'''Confidential information'''” means all information relating to to a party {{insert|or otherwise relating to that party or its affairs}}...''
-Now to any [[prose stylist]] — indeed, to any worker interested in the efficient conduct of business — that addition is an abomination. But it precipitates our old friend, the [[anal paradox]]: arguing the toss to remove it again NJ commerce seeing as transparently it does no harm, is an even ''more'' egregious waste of of the collected’s time and resources. So, these curlicues tend to stick and in time, ones templates silt up with pedantic, fussy language.
+Now to any [[prose stylist]] — indeed, to any self-respecting fellow interested in the efficient conduct of business — that addition is an abomination. But it precipitates our old friend, the [[anal paradox]], for arguing the toss to remove it again, seeing as transparently it does no harm, is an even ''more'' egregious waste of of the collected’s time and resources.
-This allows plain language windbags like yours truly to rail about the enormity of classic legal drafting.
+So, these curlicues tend to stick and in time, ones templates silt up with pedantic, fussy language. This allows plain language windbags, like yours truly, to rail about the enormity of classic legal drafting. Our view is that it is ''always'' worth defending textual elegance, not just in the name of handsome prose (though surely that is enough) but in defence of simplicity, clarity, and operability.
-Our view is that it is always worth defending textual elegance, not just in the name of handsome prose (they surely that is enough) but in defence of longer term simplicity, clarity, and operability. Think global, act local. this is where you, my crusading legal eagle, can make a difference.
+''Think global, act local.''
-Additionally, acquiring a reputation for anti-pedantry brings its own rewards. Your counterparts will quickly learn that the hollow pleasure that comes from inserting their ''[[foam]]'' into your manuscript is not worth the bother, as you can be certain to to spend tedious half hours arguing for its removal again. Make it known that there will be no easy [[in your face|swept-back wing and knee slide]] moments for your counterparts. Those who get to know you will quickly tire of trying.
+This is where ''you'', my crusading [[legal eagle]], can make a ''difference''. Don’t stand for it.
+Besides, acquiring a reputation for anti-pedantry brings its own rewards: your counterparts will learn to fear you. The hollow pleasure that comes from inserting their ''[[foam]]'' into your manuscript will not be worth the bother, as you can be certain to to spend [[tedious]] half hours insisting on its removal again. Make it known that there will be no easy [[in your face|swept-back wing and knee slide]] moments when you are on the other side of the table. Those who get to know you will quickly tire of trying.
 The best argument is the fictional session before the [[Queen’s Bench]] at which one might litigate this hypothetical point. And here we turn to our old friend {{jerrold}} to illustrate.