I never said you couldn’t: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
A general approach which might fortify you should you wish to strike inclusos from your documents: imagine trying to argue the counter-proposition before a court, without wanting the ground open up and swallow you. | A general approach which might fortify you should you wish to strike inclusos from your documents: imagine trying to argue the counter-proposition before a court, without wanting the ground open up and swallow you. | ||
“Your honour, it says “in writing”. But the defendant only sent me an email!” <br> | :“Your honour, it says “in writing”. But the defendant only sent me an ''email''!” <br> | ||
“I see. And how did the defendant communicate the message?” <br> | :“I see. And how did the defendant communicate the message?” <br> | ||
:“Well, it was in the email.” <br> | |||
“And was the email in the form of an animated GIF or something?” <br> | :“And was the email in the form of an animated GIF or something?” <br> | ||
“No.” <br> | :“No.” <br> | ||
“Was it | :“Was it in the form of a series of depictions of semaphore flags which, when taken together, spelt out a message somehow non-verbally?” <br> | ||
“No, m’lud.” <br> | :“No, m’lud.” <br> | ||
:“Well, then How was it articulated, Mr. [[Amwell J|Amwell]]? | |||
“It was in words, your honour.” <br> | :''Inaudible mumbling.'' <br> | ||
“Words?” <br> | :“Speak up, I can’t hear you.” <br> | ||
“Yes. Words.” <br> | :“It was in ''words'', your honour.” <br> | ||
“And are you suggesting that | :“Writing then, wouldn’t you say?” | ||
“Permission to run for the hills, your honour.” <br> | :“No, your honour. ''Words''.” | ||
“Granted, Mr. | :“Words?” <br> | ||
:“Yes. Words.” <br> | |||
:“And are you suggesting that “words”, spelling out a message, albeit contained in a purely [[Electronic messaging system|electronic medium]], somehow do not amount to “writing”?” <br> | |||
:“Permission to run for the hills, your honour.” <br> | |||
:“Granted, Mr. [[Amwell J|Amwell]]. Flee!” <br> | |||
{{plainenglish}} | {{plainenglish}} | ||
{{ref}} | |||
Revision as of 16:53, 29 November 2017
A kind of profound ontological uncertainty which leads to proliferating inclusos and for the avoidance of doubts, is the lawyer's reluctance to grasp a simple proposition: You don’t have positively document what you are not obliged do in a legal contract. In the absence of a contract you are not obliged to do anything.
Which brings us to Nasty. In The Young Ones,[1] just before The Damned kicked off a boisterous rendition of their punk classic Nasty, Mike and Vyvyan agonised over their failure to get their new video recorder working. It is a parable for today’s uncertain times.
- Mike: Maybe you shouldn’t have poured all of that washing-up liquid into it.
- Vyvyan: It says here, “ensure machine is clean and free from dust”.
- Mike: Yeah, but it don’t say “ensure machine is full of washing-up liquid”.
- Vyvyan: Well, it doesn’t say “ensure machine isn’t full of washing-up liquid”.
- Mike: Well, it wouldn’t would it? I mean, it doesn’t say “ensure you don’t chop up your video machine with an axe, put all the bits in a plastic bag and bung them down the lavatory.”
- Vyvyan: Doesn’t it? Well maybe that’s where we’re going wrong.
This is the lawyer's take on that old philosophical adage: the onus of proof is on the person making an existential claim.
A general approach which might fortify you should you wish to strike inclusos from your documents: imagine trying to argue the counter-proposition before a court, without wanting the ground open up and swallow you.
- “Your honour, it says “in writing”. But the defendant only sent me an email!”
- “I see. And how did the defendant communicate the message?”
- “Well, it was in the email.”
- “And was the email in the form of an animated GIF or something?”
- “No.”
- “Was it in the form of a series of depictions of semaphore flags which, when taken together, spelt out a message somehow non-verbally?”
- “No, m’lud.”
- “Well, then How was it articulated, Mr. Amwell?
- Inaudible mumbling.
- “Speak up, I can’t hear you.”
- “It was in words, your honour.”
- “Writing then, wouldn’t you say?”
- “No, your honour. Words.”
- “Words?”
- “Yes. Words.”
- “And are you suggesting that “words”, spelling out a message, albeit contained in a purely electronic medium, somehow do not amount to “writing”?”
- “Permission to run for the hills, your honour.”
- “Granted, Mr. Amwell. Flee!”
Plain English Anatomy™
Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings