http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=38981&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5I have a question following the post by Of Troy in the Professional thread in Q&A. I know it is not word related but it intrigues me.
Are lawyers really all that disliked in the U.S.? On television we hear jokes about them all the time, people denigrate them constantly and seem to really hate them.
In French Québec to be a lawyer is quite respectable. It is one of those professions people appreciate because of the level of education needed to become one.
Mind you, most Québecers do not 'have' a lawyer at all. We are not a litigious people. Even divorces are now generally handled by government social services to reach equitable distribution assets.
So, is this just a U.S. thing (and is it really true) or are lawyers really despised everywhere?
In the main the lawyers have gotten a bad rap. We would not need so many if there were not such a horde of greedy people trying to get by litigation things they are not entitled to, and unscrupulous people always devising new schemes that require new laws to protect us, and a society ever getting more complex to require still more new laws. The enemy is us.
Down here, you sometimes read about the civil rights movement--not just how the whole thing's been settled, but how everyone was fighting on the same side. Or about how no one knew about all the graft at a given time in a given city. The universal disdain for lawyers may be something like that. I mean, *somebody's hiring all 800,000(?) of them.
>So, is this just a U.S. thing (and is it really true) or are lawyers really despised everywhere?
I don't think it is the same here in the UK.
I have told lawyer jokes and have had to convert them to "American lawyer" jokes as in:
Q: What would you call 50 American lawyers at the bottom of the sea (translated from Ocean)?
A: A start
The joke usually falls flat and is met with blank looks, in the same way that "Polish" jokes were a few years ago. We just don't think that there is anything unusual or funny about Polish people. You hardly ever hear an Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman jokes anymore, although I do move in fairly "alternative" comedy circles, so most humour is observational.
Most people here use a solicitor to help them buy a house and to write a will, that is probably the only contact they have during their life.
In Edinburgh, in my experience, the main hostility is directed at surveyers who only look at a house once but end up with three or four people paying them fees for the surveys, at £250 a time and up to ten attempts to buy a property it can be an expensive business. The lawyers on the other hand tend to only charge a small fee for abortive attempts and work harder for their money. Similarly, when I was in London my experience of estate agents was very poor, I resented paying their 2.5% share of the transaction when I did all the work, whereas the solicitor really did earn her money.
The main issue is usually litigation, especially if you are on the wrong side of a claim. We have only relatively recently had no-win-no-fee litigation but the numbers are still small as are the amounts given in compensation. Fortunately, one of the big firms "Claims Direct" has just gone into receivership, probably as a result of its over-zealous advertising campaign and reputation as an ambulance chaser - I didn't hear too much sympathy expressed in any quarter. The NHS in England has a huge backlog of claims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1308000/1308747.stm
and is in danger of spending more on litigation than improvements to patient care, so maybe the lawyers will emerge as the baddies of the piece in the future. Who knows?
The following comment, like BelM's original post above, ties back to the thread re "professionals". There, wwh notes, "What's a professional? I have seen in print claims that practitioners of commercial sex were the earliest."
In a conversation over what is truly the oldest profession, the doctor claimed precedence. "As early as the second book of the Bible," he noted, "God created Eve from Adam's rib -- clearly the earliest surgical procedure." The builder responded, "Yes, but in the first book of the Bible, God created the earth out of chaos -- so my profession, construction, preceded yours." The lawyer paused for dramatic effect, and then rejoined, "So who do you think created the chaos?"
BelM, that may suggest the source of the US distaste for lawyers: we just naturally are associated with chao and trouble. Which reminds me of another story ... [but I digress]
~~~~~~~~~~
PS, if this is not a yart: a biblical "game" per the above joke: find examples of _______ was the first _________ because he/she __________.
Any takers?
First, apology to tsuwm if this is a repeat of his link which I cannot get - full moon ?
Anyway, here are a few cases - sent to me by a friend who deals with the legal profession - to give non-USns a taste of the lengths the law sometimes stretches!
1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amok inside a furniture store.The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son.
2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice someone had entered the car and was preparing to drive away as he (Truman) was in the midst of trying to steal the car's hubcaps.
3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol, PA, was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and
garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr.Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. This upset Mr. Dickson, so he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change.
4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, AK was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought after because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.
5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, PA, $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.
6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This
occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the lady's room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.
How many of these survived appeal?
And, regarding #4: The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. I am a little confused. Was Mr. Williams on a chain in his owner's yard or in the dog's owner's yard?
Having trouble with complex thought this morning?
It's ambiguous, wow, and relevant to the case. If Mr. Williams was chained up in *his owner's yard, how close was it to the dog's owner's yard and how long was the chain on the dog? If it was long enough for the dog to get into Mr. Williams's owner's yard perhaps the dog *was negligent and deserved to be sued by Mr. Williams (although I should think that Mr. Williams's owner might be more likely to have the right to sue here for damage to *his property). On the other hand, if Mr. Williams was chained up in the *dog's owner's yard, perhaps Mr. Williams's owner should be suing for deprivation of property rights. Unless, of course, Mr. Williams was being chained up in the dog's owner's yard because he (Mr. Williams) had been caught by the dog's owner ravishing his (the dog's owner's) rabbits or some such crime against property.
I don't think *I'm having any problem with complex thought, here, wow. I think you're oversimplifying the situation.
Ann:
I will bet you $5 per case that no one on this board can come up with a citation to the cases that are recounted in your post to prove that they actually exist. If any real cases come to light, I will pay the $5, but I will also bet $25 that an examination of the court record will reveal that there were other highly pertinent facts that are conveniently not included in the synopses floating about the Net.
Take No. 1:
January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amok inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son.
This writeup implies that the toddler's running amok was the proximate cause for the injury. But if you look carefully, you find that is merely an inference the casual reader takes from the synopsis. It says only that she was awarded money AFTER breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler. We no not know if there were other factors involved. It's entirely possible that Ms. Robertson was actually backing up to avoid an irate store employee and tripped over her child. It's possible she was running to stop him from being run over by a fork lift whose operator did not see him.
Look at No. 5:
May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, PA, $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.
On the surface it seems ridiculous. BUT! The report does not claim a nexus between either the injury or the spilled soft drink and the award. The restaurant owner may have come over and maced Ms. Carson after she had fallen. It could be that the owner put her into handcuffs and she claimed false imprisonment. It could be that the owner refused to call for medical help. The writeup does not say that the award was compensation for the broken tailbone. There could be a million reasons why the award (if it really exists) was granted.
Then take a critical look at no. 6.
December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the lady's room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.
Similarly, there is neither a claimed nor a reported nexus between the injury and the award. It could be that an employee came into the restroom, observed Ms. Walton's attempted entry, and pulled her out of the window, with the push itself causing the injury. Perhaps they strip-searched her and dragged her naked and in handcuffs through the nightclub.
There is a glibness to these reports that raises my inherited reporter's hackles.
TEd
RE: Look at No. 5:
May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, PA, $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.
Like TEd, i read the accounts and wondered what was missing.. in this case, i wondered about the flooring. it is to expected, that a place that serves food, will have some food mishap. some flooring resists getting slippy when wet, other flooring get noticable slippier.. if the restaurant had the later kind, i would hold them partial responsible..
a restaurant has to expect that there will occationaly be some spillage of water, soda, and other liquids.-- it doesn't matter to me if it accidental, or perhaps playful spilled, (or even, in a classical, comedic way, thrown at some one.) so it should be sure to have flooring that resists getting slippy when wet. NYC subways are filled with this flooring.. its very attactive, and looks like terrazzo, but its like very fine grit sandpaper, even when wet. its hard to slip on it.
"While others rise by thier gravity, I fall by my levity"
att: Adlai Stevenson
wow, I'm sorry that my link didn't work for you (have others had a problem?). the article I cited didn't get into this (seemingly) frivolous kind of litigation, but talked about a couple of theories as to why lawyers are so poorly regarded. one is the "'dentist theory' based on the observation that people encounter lawyers at unhappy, painful times in their lives"; the other (more viable) one is the "'bartender theory', which begins with the observation that clients actively seek out many of the lawyers' worst attributes. The vindictive spouse looks for the carpet-bombing divorce lawyer; the dishonest business wants shady help in stiffing its creditors; the person nursing a dubious injury claim looks for the skilled exaggerator."
if we want to get at the real reasons behind the state of the "bar" in the US, we should take a look at these ideas rather than just debunking the urban legends. but that's just me.
The link worked fine for me.
As to how lawyers work (and I sleep with one, so I have some close-hand knowledge):
Attorneys represent people who believe they need justice (at least in the context we've been discussing, there are of course other reasons people hire attorneys). They are not there to "create" cases. In fact, there is the offense of barratry, pretty much specific to attorneys, and being defined as the vexatious and persistent incitement of lawsuits. An attorney who commits barratry goes beyond ambulance chasing, and will eventually be disbarred or worse.
But I digress. An attorney is only a learned spokesperson for a client and will usually tell a client that his or her lawsuit has or does not have a chance of winning. There is also the problem of frivolous lawsuits, which an attorney is trained to recognize and avoid at all costs, since he or she is the one who'll get disbarred if there are too many of them. It is not the attorneys who are causing all of the lawsuits in the US; it's the greedy plaintiffs who hope to get something for nothing. Without plaintiffs there wouldn't be anywhere near as many attorneys as there are now. They'd all starve to death.
I believe that most educated people would recognize a lawsuit based primarily upon greed as opposed to one in which there truly was or was perceived to be an injury requiring redress. And most of them would believe that most of those Ann listed are, on the surface at least, lawsuits based upon greed.
I'll give you a concrete example. My brother drives cars about 20 years old because he cannot afford anything else. Some time back, he said to me, "And this guy skidded up behind me and missed the rear end of my truck by about two inches. If he'd hit me, I'd have sued him and they'd have given me a brand new truck."
It was literally impossible to convince him that the person's liability to him (other than for injury) would have been limited to the value of his truck (probably $500 or so). "Nope, they'da owed me a new pickup truck. And I'da gone for the expensive one, you can bet your ass." It is this attitude that you can get something for nothing that in the end demonizes the legal profession. People tend to think that attorneys are the cause of this greed, and not simply the spokespersons for it.
Many attorneys won't touch this sort of case, though there are others that go out of their way to take them. Here in Denver we have a guy named Andy Cameron who is always advertising for people with personal injuries to call him so he can get "as much money for you as we can." Believe it or not, in one of these commercials he is sitting at a desk with a dog sitting on a chair beside him. The ad captions the dog as "legal analyst." Peggy assures me that in North Carolina Andy would have been disbarred long ago for having besmirched the legal profession.
But these are the bottom feeders and are in no way indicative of the overall ethics and quality of the legal profession, which I personally hold in high regard.
Oh! Almost forgot. In the article tsuwm mentioned, there is the following:
Alan Dershowitz, when criticized for some of his stratagems in criminal defense--things like telling the client on first meeting, "Don't tell me whether you're guilty or not; it would tie my hands to know; leave me free to come up with the best defense"--has defended himself by saying, Look, if your kid were arrested and charged with something, you'd want a lawyer just like me.
The reality of it is: If a defendant tells an attorney that he is guilty, the attorney is ethically barred from putting on a not guilty defense. His or her only actions involve getting the best possible sentence for the culprit.
An attorney for a defendant has an ethical duty to present the best possible defense, which may mean playing the race card, as happened int he OJ case, or the SODDI* defense, which was in essence the defense used by Terry Nichols to escape the death penalty. It's the way our system works, and it certainly beats systems in other countries where a person may be convicted and executed without even having an attorney (Afghanistan comes immediately to mind.)
TEd
*Some Other Dude Did It
Dear Max: the crazy verdicts represent the idiocy of the juries, who are all to ready to give away somebody else's money. Many times lawyers advise their clients to settle out of court just to avoid getting an absurd jury verdict. Too many idiots get onto juries.Too many good citizens manage to avoid jury duty.
>crazy verdicts
while the fact of the matter is that there will always be excesses when it comes to jury verdicts (it's a crapshoot), the average award derived from litigation has come down dramatically in recent years. this is, in no small way, a reaction to grossly obscene awards in previous years (see, for example, the McDonalds scalding coffee lawsuit*, a real and well-documented case (as opposed to those cited above)). the pendulum has swung far enough the other way so as to make it difficult to get any kind of meaningful recompense for real damages suffered at the hands of careless or wantonly negligent individuals or businesses.
not that this has put a stop to the never-ending desire on the part of the faineant to get something for nothing, and keep the barratrous (but still at the bar) ambulance chasers well-employed. it's that crapshoot mentality.
I think I'll go out and purchase some lottery tickets now.
*
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
I was interested to see your definition of barratry, which I had not encountered before. I had encountered the word, being in the shipping business, because every ocean bill of lading, which constitutes the contract of carriage, stipulates that the ship and/or its owners or operators shall not be liable for any loss arising from the barratry of the master or crew. In this sense, it means a fraudulent, neglectful or wrong action by the master or a crew member. On looking in a couple dictionaries, I found your definition, mine (noted as archaic by one dictionary, which it certainly is not, being in use daily in the ocean shipping business), and a third, which is the offense generally known as simony -- trafficking in church benefices or offices.
Just to be mischievous, "barrator" was Today's Word about six months ago, and I posted a note about "barratry" in marine law. But I won't say YART!
tsuwm, here's a sentence from your link: We have expanded damage theories to the point where we are willing to mulct defendants of amounts that all previous American generations and the citizens of all foreign countries would consider fantastic.
Would you, or someone, please tell me about the word mulct, and one word you just used, faineant?
mulct - 1) to punish by a fine 2) to deprive or divest of
faineant - one who does nothing; an idler [F, do-nothing]
Dear tsuwm: in Boston newpapers, the verb "mulct" was often used in its second meaning "to extract money from somebody, by fraud or deceit". I never saw it any other way.
>I never saw it any other way.
you see how words get distorted from their original meanings? <EG>
Given this insider's perspective, Ted, is there any chance that you may have access to, or know how to gain access to, records that would clarify the civil suits mentioned by wow? It is civil suits of this sort that have contributed more to a sense of astonished disgust at the US legal profession, at least from an outsider's perspective. The odd instance of jury nullification, like the two shocking decisions in the Rodney King and OJ criminal trials, are less of a threat to the reputation of lawyers than the apparent absurdity of judgements like those mentioned by wow. Here in NZ, the perception of the law in the States is simple: "You can sue for everything, and win." Even from 10,000 kilometres away, US lawyers are held in low esteem largely because of this perception. That, and the naïf misunderstanding that "The Law" is about upholding Justice.
Max--
I certainly have a some access to legal things like that, having at one time been a paralegal, but finding those lawsuits is the next thing to impossible. When I first saw the cases Ann presented, I googled the names given and came away with zilch. There are quite a few cases that show up if you google the name of a plaintiff or respondent, but there's no way that I know of to systematically search all courts of record everywhere to try to find those particular cases. One would need the name of the respondent, the court, and hopefully a docket number.
One of the things about juries that many people do not realize is that jurors are not arbiters of law, they determine what the facts are. Take a criminal trial, for instance. If a jury finds you guilty, they have merely agreed that the fact of your guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. They do not establish whether the law that makes a particular act an offense is valid. That's what judges are for.
You mentioned jury nullification. Yes, that does happen, though I question whether it happened in the OJ case.
BUT! If an attorney in closing arguments mentions to the jury that they should acquit because the underlying law is a bad law the judge will be all over her like white on rice. That's a big no-no. It would almost certainly be a matter for the judge to consider as contempt of court, and I suspect it might even lead to consideration of disbarment if the abuse was flagrant enough (or repeated).
As to the perception in NZ, yes, anyone can sue for anything. But with rare exceptions the plaintiff does not prevail unless there's a preponderance of the evidence establishing liability on the part of the respondent.
I could in theory put together a class of Adams fans and sue you for denigrating your namesake. It would go at least as far as docketing the case, but a judge would almost certainly throw the case out as frivolous and give me a very stern warning to never pull that crap again. But I probably would have to do it on my own, which is called proceeding pro se. I doubt if I could find a lawyer who would touch such a case. As to pro se things, I have personally seen instances where nut cases who filed one lawsuit after another were barred from filing a case in a particular judge's jurisdiction without having an attorney representing them. There have been quite a few instances like that to the north of here (I'm in the Denver area and am thinking of Montana and Idaho) where right-wing "patriots" file multi-million dollar liens against the property of anyone who disagrees with them, usually the sheriff, county prosecutor, and local elected officials. It's called abuse of process, and people do occasionally go to jail for it.
But in the final analysis I believe that what's wrong with our justice system isn't lawyers, it's greedy plaintiffs.
One last thought. In those cases Ann cited, it's remotely possible that those were default judgments, which are rendered more or less automatically when the respondent doesn't show up in court to put on a defense.
TEd
I just love unreported court cases. You can argue them over for ever and a day and no one can say whether your view is right, wrong, or even relates to the case under discussion. Until my other half completed her law degree, I wasn't even aware that not all cases aren't reported!
I read somewhere that the US graduates more lawyers in a year than the total number practicing in Japan
In Japan, they have people who do basically the same things as lawyers over here, but the Japanese don't consider them lawyers. If we counted them, Japan and the U.S. would have a very close number of lawyers.
In reply to:
I wasn't even aware that not all cases aren't reported!
Err, CK I think this means you thought all cases were reported, but I'd hate to have to convince a jury of it.
Bingley
Err, CK I think this means you thought all cases were reported, but I'd hate to have to convince a jury of it.Bingley, you're right. A double negative, I'm positive of it.
CK:
I understood your last phrase perfectly and I don't hink it's a double negative. How would you recast the sentence to be as succinct and still get the point across.
As to reported cases:
The only cases that are reported are those where there is a final decision written by the presiding judge or judges. Cases where the final decision is taken by a jury are never reported, at least I have never seen one in the thirty or so years I've been reading case law. (My wife thinks I'm crazy because I read Supreme Court cases for the fun of it. And she's the attorney!)
Once a case has been heard before a jury, unless there is a reversal for error, a jury never sees the case again. All of the appeals happen before one or more judges, who makes or make a decision on the appeal. I've no idea what percentage of these cases are "reported" which means simply that they are published in a series of books which are then readily available for research. But I do know that the higher up the legal hierarchy the more likely that a case will be reported, and at the highest levels (State Supreme Court, some Federal appeals benches, and of course SCOTUS) every case is reported. Note that there are never jury trials at that level.
If I had to guess I would say that probably 80 percent of the total of all judges' decisions are unreported, but they are still precedential in nature. It's so much easier, though, to cite to a published decision. In my first paralegal job I'd like to have a nickel for every time I cited US v. Shimer, 367 US 374. After all these years I can remember every detail of the case and why it was so important to veterans.
TEd
Ck, a triple negative, surely?
Bingley
The Urban Legends Reference Page on the six cases mentioned above:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/lawsuits.htm Bingley
Thank you, Bingley--that is enlightening indeed. Speaking of greedy people, as I just posted in another thread...
Sick of too many lawyers…?
Medical malpractice insurance premiums are soaring at the highest rate since the mid-1980's, adding to rising health care costs.
Insurers say the increases, typically in the double digits, result mainly from a rise in jury awards, now averaging $3.49 million.http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/10/business/10MEDI.html?todaysheadlines
First, the good news:
there is a place without lawyers…Now the bad news: it’s Kabul
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/10/international/asia/10AFGH.html?todaysheadlines
Max, according to the article the six cases have been circulating via email for some time and used to be accompanied by one about someone who sued a microwave company after using the microwave to give a poodle (perhaps the doberman wouldn't fit in the microwave) a blow dry. In some instances the list was supposed to come from a (fictitious) law firm interested in tort reform.
The rest of the article basically summarises arguments for and against tort reform.
Bingley
Presumably it is to this litigousness we owe this gem from Faldage's link to a map of NY:
In reply to:
When using any driving directions or map, it's a good idea to do a reality check and make sure the road still exists,
Bingley
litigousness
Do not pile maps more than ten high when attempting to change a light bulb. Be sure maps are dry to avoid risk of shock if you are too stupid to disconnect power before changing light bulb.
"if you are too stupid to disconnect power before changing light bulb."
Dear Faldage: do you really shut off power before changing light bulb?
shut off power before
Duh! Of course not. I *disconnect it.
Tort reform? That's when the first tort I make doesn't come out right. So sue me ...
And here I thought it was getting the girls off the streets.
Which reminds me of the day in Torts class in first-year law school, when Professor Harry Kalven was leading a discussion of the principal that certain acts, which would otherwise be improper and tortious, are permissible if done with consent. (For example, punching someone or cutting him with a knife would ordinarily be a tort -- but the former is permitted in a boxing match, and the latter is allowable if you are a surgeon performing surgery.) But as he pointed out, the consent must be an informed one, not a consent given in ignorance or obtained by fraud.
At which point Professor Kalven posed this question: "If you refuse to pay the whore the $25, does it vitiate her prior consent and create a tort?"
To which one student (me) promptly replied, "Professor, where can you find one for $25?"
Brought down the house. Harry and I were great friends from that day to his death.
Note to Jazz-o: this classroom technique should be used only with care!
To which one student (me) promptly replied, "Professor, where can you find one for $25?"
Harry and I were great friends from that day to his death.
You had clearly done some market research. Your prof. clearly appreciated your preparedness for his class.
You had clearly done some market researchHmm. Keiva, tell us more, do!
Please, dear lady! My analysis was that Harry, being then in his late sixties, had simply failed to adjust his own prior data for inflation.
Of course, at the time the prevalence of amateur participants, with whom I was familiar, doubtless depressed the market price for professionals.
and BTW, congratulations and felicitations on your Carpal diem, m'dear.
the prevalence of amateur participantsOh dear, I think I'm sorry I asked!
So, I am the Carpal of the day, hmm? Or maybe Tunnel of the day--yes, that's much better: can you dig it, O foxy one?
".....," said Jackie, tartly and Tartareanly.