82,891
edits
Definitions: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{pe}}A boon and a bane. On one hand they can cut through needless word-proliferation: | {{a|pe| | ||
[[File:Oats.png|450px|frameless|center]] | |||
}}A boon and a bane. On one hand they can cut through needless word-proliferation: | |||
{{quote|“'''[[ERISA]]'''” means The [[Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974]] (Pub.L. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829, enacted September 2, 1974, codified in part at 29 U.S.C. ch. 18) as amended, restated or superseded from time to time.”}} | {{quote|“'''[[ERISA]]'''” means The [[Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974]] (Pub.L. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829, enacted September 2, 1974, codified in part at 29 U.S.C. ch. 18) as amended, restated or superseded from time to time.”}} | ||
| Line 26: | Line 28: | ||
I humbly submit it does not. Especially since, notwithstanding all that towering anality, the miserable blighter didn’t even get it right. It is the “The Financial Collateral ''Arrangements'' (No.2) Regulations 2003”. | I humbly submit it does not. Especially since, notwithstanding all that towering anality, the miserable blighter didn’t even get it right. It is the “The Financial Collateral ''Arrangements'' (No.2) Regulations 2003”. | ||
'' | ''Git''. | ||
===The definition as [[Biggs Hoson]]=== | ===The definition as [[Biggs Hoson]]=== | ||
The final way to use definitions is as some kind of hymn to pedantry. This appeals to fans of [[Havid Dilbert]]’s programme to find a complete and consistent set of axiomatic legal propositions. [[Dilbert’s programme]] eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any agreement, on the grounds that it opens the way to [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. Thus where we find undefined words, we define them ''exactly as they are'', [[for the avoidance of doubt|to avoid a doubt]] so minuscule it heartily crosses the threshold between completeness and paranoia: | The final way to use definitions is as some kind of hymn to pedantry. This appeals to fans of [[Havid Dilbert]]’s programme to find a complete and consistent set of axiomatic legal propositions. [[Dilbert’s programme]] eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any agreement, on the grounds that it opens the way to [[Cardozo indeterminacy]]. Thus where we find undefined words, we define them ''exactly as they are'', [[for the avoidance of doubt|to avoid a doubt]] so minuscule it heartily crosses the threshold between completeness and paranoia: | ||