82,891
edits
Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions
Good luck in court with that one (view source)
Revision as of 15:53, 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| | ||
[[File:Jimmy Hill.png|450px|thumb|center|Jimmy Hill, yesterday.]] | |||
}}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?” | 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?” | ||
This is rather like reacting, as schoolboys of the [[JC]]’s generation did, when presented with | This is rather like reacting, as schoolboys of the [[JC]]’s generation did, when presented with a transparently preposterous playground boast in the playground — you know, the “my dad was in Colditz during the war, and he escaped, in a bi-plane made out of leberwürste he stole from the refectory” sort of thing — by theatrically stroking one’s chin and cackling, “Oh, right, ''[[Jimmy Hill]]''.” | ||
Friends, we do not do the ''Jimmy Hill chin-stroke'' nearly enough any more. | Friends, we do not do the ''Jimmy Hill chin-stroke'' nearly enough any more. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 26: | ||
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 | Now to any [[prose stylist]] — indeed, to a self-respecting fellow interested in the efficient conduct of business from ''any'' perspective — 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. | ||
So, these curlicues tend to stick and through 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. | So, these curlicues tend to stick and through 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. | ||