heckuva job - 12/31/05 05:27 AM
Re: heckuva job - 12/31/05 07:38 AM
Quote:
-- "In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible - whatever that means," the president said. Interesting Article
How refreshing.
As a word person and a judge you must admire such a guileless answer, huh, Father Steve?
Re: heckuva job - 12/31/05 04:54 PM
As a judge, everything I say in open court is recorded and subject to transcription, should the need arise. This is a dreaful thing. Because I say a great many things ("for the record") every day, not all of them are as perfectly phrased as a published opinion by Learned Hand or Oliver Wendell Holmes. It would horrify me if the local press spent time, every day, sifting through the record in my court to locate every verbal flub I make. And it would doubtless shame me, were all of these to be published in the local paper or on local television, for the amusement of readers and viewers. On the other hand, people in "public life" -- whatever that is -- are deemed "fair game" these days and I'd have to take my licks, just like the President of the United States.
Father Judge - 12/31/05 06:10 PM
Do you still make flubs? I mean, considering your position, age (which I assume is, er, "veteran"), and your particularly keen interest in English, plus the fact you're a licensed member of the "Word Police" (or something akin? 
), can you really?
After so many years of practicing, perfecting, and living English, I would imagine it's impossible to flub grammatically!
), can you really? After so many years of practicing, perfecting, and living English, I would imagine it's impossible to flub grammatically!
Re: Father Judge - 12/31/05 06:50 PM
I'm at home -- there is no court on Saturday -- but I have the transcript of a hearing in which I created such a verbal jumble that I am reluctant to share it with you ... were it not that it well illustrates my previous point.
JUDGE: Now, as regards this court's requirement that you not operate a motor vehicle wihout an approved and functioning ignition interlock device, I want to be clear that my order is co-extensive with that of the Department of Licensing, which can and likely will or has ordered the same thing under its administrative powers, such that, if they order it, I order it, whereas, if they do not, I don't, and, for as long as the department requires it, I require it. Is that clear? No? I didn't think so.
JUDGE: Now, as regards this court's requirement that you not operate a motor vehicle wihout an approved and functioning ignition interlock device, I want to be clear that my order is co-extensive with that of the Department of Licensing, which can and likely will or has ordered the same thing under its administrative powers, such that, if they order it, I order it, whereas, if they do not, I don't, and, for as long as the department requires it, I require it. Is that clear? No? I didn't think so.
Re: Father Judge - 12/31/05 07:03 PM
Quote:
I'm at home -- there is no court on Saturday -- but I have the transcript of a hearing in which I created such a verbal jumble that I am reluctant to share it with you ... were it not that it well illustrates my previous point.
JUDGE: Now, as regards this court's requirement that you not operate a motor vehicle wihout an approved and functioning ignition interlock device, I want to be clear that my order is co-extensive with that of the Department of Licensing, which can and likely will or has ordered the same thing under its administrative powers, such that, if they order it, I order it, whereas, if they do not, I don't, and, for as long as the department requires it, I require it. Is that clear? No? I didn't think so.
Sorry, padre, but that was very easy to follow. Measured against this mishmash, at any rate. (note the cunning avoidance of the compare to/with palaver, it being way too early in the year for me to sort that one out)