Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions

Good luck in court with that one (view source)

Revision as of 15:54, 7 October 2021

20 bytes removed , 7 October 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 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 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]]''.”
+This is rather like reacting, as schoolboys of the [[JC]]’s generation did, when presented with a transparently preposterous playground boast — 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.
 The idea is to move the debate from tedious hypotheticals about conceptual risks and linguistic imperfections, to assessing the practical risk of significant confusion that results in loss. A lawyer’s mandate is made of wood, metal, leather and earth. It is not of the [[Platonic ideal|spheres]]. We are not theorists of perfect exactitude, but ''enablers of commercse''. [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough]].