82,890
edits
Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions
Good luck in court with that one (view source)
Revision as of 09:39, 7 October 2021
, 7 October 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{A|devil|}}A counterfactual proposition which ought to be put in service more often than it is, in defence of simple language and resistance of [[flannel]]. | {{A|devil|}}A counterfactual proposition which ought to be put in service more often than it is, in defence of simple language and resistance of [[flannel]]. | ||
When presented with such pettifoggery, resist it thus: “are you saying that if you presented your interpretation to a court it would, seriously, entertain it?” | |||
The idea is to move from theoretical, conceptual risk of imperfection to practical risk of loss. A lawyer’s mandate is made of wood, metal, leather and earth. It does not traverse the [[Platonic ideal|spheres]]. We are not perfectionists, but commercial enablers. [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough]]. | |||
[[Legal eagle]]s are nothing if not creative, though the forensic imagination bounds ''toward'' the paranoid, ''away from'' practical common sense at every opportunity. | [[Legal eagle]]s are nothing if not creative, though the forensic imagination bounds ''toward'' the paranoid, ''away from'' practical common sense at every opportunity. | ||