Good luck in court with that one: Difference between revisions

Good luck in court with that one (view source)

Revision as of 09:27, 7 October 2021

434 bytes added , 7 October 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,890

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{A|devil|}}
+{{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 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'' 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]].
+[[Legal eagle]]s are nothing if not creative, though the forensic imagination bounds ''toward'' the paranoid, ''away from'' practical common sense at every opportunity.
+Every legal [[negotiator]] will, regularly, find herself engaged in a fruitless argument about some hypothetical catastrophe ''which'' might arise ''if'' a counterpart should wilfully 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]].
+{{quote|
+“But what if I want to do that?” <br>
+“It doesn’t say you can’t.” <br>
+“But it doesn’t say I ''can'', either.” <br>
+“It doesn’t have to.” <br>
+“Yes, but it ''could''.” <br>
+“Don’t be ridiculous.” <br>
+“Look, it won’t hurt to say, out loud, [[for the avoidance of doubt]], that I can.”
+“What ''[[Any type, kind or variety|kind]]'' of doubt?” <br>}}
 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}}...''
@@ Line 8: / Line 18: @@
 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.
-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.
+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.
 ''Think global, act local.''
-This is where ''you'', my crusading [[legal eagle]], can make a ''difference''. Don’t stand for it.
+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.