The New And Improved Fashion Board - Page 278

Shape Shifter · 12-12-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
I didn't hate her response. In fact, I liked it just peachily fine. I am not sure why it took 20 minutes, however. Jesus. I'm going back to being nice.

Her response is mildly annoying, though so mild I probably wouldn't even notice it had it not been in an article about Evite declines. What I found much more annoying was her agonizing over her cutesy response -- as if anyone really cares. Just give a yes or no so the host can order booze. And then, after agonizing over what cutesy response to give, that was her best shot? If she's putting in 20 minutes, she ought to at least come up with a decent song parody.

greatwhitenorthchick · 12-12-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
She is retired at 32. You should all hate her.

"Retired" means SAHM. Not my bag, baby.

sebastian_dangerfield · 12-12-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I followed up with people the week before the party to see who was actually coming. But I was more anal than most, since I had to turn in a guest list and pay for the open bar. It worked out pretty well, but the 6 or 8 people who no showed on me the night of because "the babysitter backed out" or "the kid had the sniffles" cost me in the neighborhood of $500 on bar tab that went unused. From now on I invite only singletons and childless couples. Done and done.

That's a smart course.

Shape Shifter · 12-12-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
She is retired at 32. You should all hate her.

I do, and I've arranged for her to not be invited to any of ncs's parties.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 12-12-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But in litigation, you do nothing more than show yourself a gaping horse's ass when you quote an opponent's mis-use or minor immaterial misspelling of the name of a witness as a (sic) in a letter to the court.

2. What's your opponent going to do if you correct the spelling? claim you misquoted him?

sebastian_dangerfield · 12-12-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Her response is mildly annoying, though so mild I probably wouldn't even notice it had it not been in an article about Evite declines. What I found much more annoying was her agonizing over her cutesy response -- as if anyone really cares. Just give a yes or no so the host can order booze. And then, after agonizing over what cutesy response to give, that was her best shot? If she's putting in 20 minutes, she ought to at least come up with a decent song parody.

I think her response is a bit sappy, but polite and appropriate. Why it took her 20 minutes best explains her present career track.

Cletus Miller · 12-12-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
From now on I invite only singletons and childless couples. Done and done.

You're showing your true colors as a bitter, childless spinster. Well done!! Now, just stalk Spanky some more to complete your day.

Sparklehorse · 12-12-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Her response is mildly annoying, though so mild I probably wouldn't even notice it had it not been in an article about Evite declines. What I found much more annoying was her agonizing over her cutesy response -- as if anyone really cares. Just give a yes or no so the host can order booze. And then, after agonizing over what cutesy response to give, that was her best shot? If she's putting in 20 minutes, she ought to at least come up with a decent song parody.

I was surprised to read that she felt the need for everyone to be sad that she wasn't going to be at the party. I've never felt compelled by this urge. Am I somehow incomplete?

nononono · 12-12-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The culture of revision isn't necessarily a bad thing. I agree it's silly in the context of an evite, but there's no reason we shouldn't try to make our communications proper. I loath all stripes of lawyer, but people who revise stuff and demand it be well written are a speedbump against the sort of crap email language that's beginning to infect people's formal correspondence.

The problem with lawyers is most of them are more fixated on finding immaterial mistakes in docs/sorrespondence so they can insult/embarrass one another than they are in analyzing the meat of what's between the four corners of the paper. I understand that in a complex transactional agreement, all must be perfect. but in litigation, you do nothing more than show yourself a gaping horse's ass when you quote an opponent's mis-use or minor immaterial misspelling of the name of a witness as a (sic) in a letter to the court. Knowing when to use the rule is at least (if not more) important than knowing the rule.

What drives me nuts is when a lawyer tells you someone "doesn't know how to write." What he means most often is that person doesn't know how to write like him, or write as lawyers are expected to write (dry, dull, not using any language that might challenge the mental thesaurus of a dim little clerk). The tragedy of legal writing is its studied dullardry.*

*I don't know if this is actually a word, but you know what I mean. Which is more than adequate.

Agree, especially with the first paragraph, though I've eased up a lot.

ncs, I am glad to hear you smash the mold. The world needs more like you. But to be clear, unlike the retired lawyer with the evite response, I don't spend time on these things. In the time it took to lay out, I could have signed approximately one million emails*.

Which reminds me: holiday cards: personalized note or just signature? I always do a note (and probably always will), but it really slows things down.

*I guess in my hierarchy of stupid correspondence things to worry about, I'm more relationship-oriented than I am worried about wondering whether after double-digit years of practice I still haven't learned how to draft (or review someone else's draft of) a quick cover note.

Replaced_Texan · 12-12-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Her response is mildly annoying, though so mild I probably wouldn't even notice it had it not been in an article about Evite declines. What I found much more annoying was her agonizing over her cutesy response -- as if anyone really cares. Just give a yes or no so the host can order booze. And then, after agonizing over what cutesy response to give, that was her best shot? If she's putting in 20 minutes, she ought to at least come up with a decent song parody.

I went back to look. My most recent evite repsonses:

"I'm looking forward to it."
"Not sure when we're leaving town."
"I would love to come!"
"-" (no response, just marked "yes")
"Yoga schmoga. This looks like more fun. I'd better not be the only one showing up in costume."
"I'll be there. Happy, happy birthday and have a great time in China."
"Um, I'm going to be in costume, as I have a few Halloween parties to go to that night... "
"Of course I'll be there!"
"I'm looking forward to it. Thanks Jim!"

nononono · 12-12-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Her response is mildly annoying, though so mild I probably wouldn't even notice it had it not been in an article about Evite declines. What I found much more annoying was her agonizing over her cutesy response -- as if anyone really cares. Just give a yes or no so the host can order booze. And then, after agonizing over what cutesy response to give, that was her best shot? If she's putting in 20 minutes, she ought to at least come up with a decent song parody.

Translation: 2. ?

Sparklehorse · 12-12-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. What's your opponent going to do if you correct the spelling? claim you misquoted him?

I filed a motion recently where I had to quote an opposing party document. The date in a relevant sentence was "November 31, 2005." You and Sebby are saying that I'm a tool to put "(sic)" after that?

Shape Shifter · 12-12-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
Translation: 2. ?

I'd respond to this more fully, but I've only got 16 minutes left to finish up "Spanky Got Run Over by a Reindeer."

greatwhitenorthchick · 12-12-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparklehorse
I was surprised to read that she felt the need for everyone to be sad that she wasn't going to be at the party. I've never felt compelled by this urge. Am I somehow incomplete?

She strikes me as a boring attention-hound with way too much time on her hands. At a party I would avoid her at all costs, unless she was an entertaining drunk. But I doubt that.

sebastian_dangerfield · 12-12-2006, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. What's your opponent going to do if you correct the spelling? claim you misquoted him?

Who knows. I never cited an opponent's error unless he or she was a full on asshole, and even then, I felt like a dope for doing it afterward.

It's like holding a great big sign over your head and saying "I got nothin' substantively, your honor!"

I blame law school, where they train kids that the cites are more important than the the thrust of the argument. Dry prose is Sominex.

The best legal writing I've ever seen came from a huge firm in NYC. The author was a wildly arrogant man with a great sarcastic sense of humor. You could read his briefs on two levels. He did very well in the case, I think in part because people read his shit closely. You actually wanted to read it because he'd push the envelope of acceptable insult so close to the edge. I think he got away with it because he insulted the opponent, rather than his opposing counsel. And he was fucking funny.