Anyone notice anything wrong with the Nearly Perfect Husband’s signature above?
Well, allow me to help you out.
His title is wrong.
He has neglected to put the word, ‘Nearly’ in front of the words “Perfect Husband”.
The guy’s gone rogue.
Okay, so I have already told you that my holiday was sort of fuzzy and hazy because of a nearly flu-type bodily invasion.
And I’ve implied that it was nearly a disaster but I was well enough to enjoy Christmas and all its magic and wonder, though occasional coughing fits interjected themselves at somewhat inconvenient times.
And now I’m nearly recovered.
Now it seems that all of that may have been for not because I have just read one of my Christmas presents (one that was presented to me in my Christmas morning nearly-flu-haze) and it turns out that the Nearly Perfect Husband is officially petitioning to have the word ‘nearly’….
removed from the dictionary!
And now I am forced to defend a word when I am still convalescing!
ExHibit One (because ExHibits are lawyer-y and I am going to be all official (and lawyer-y)):
The very first argumentarian (official and lawyer-y term) point that I will make is to highlight that my spouse has used the word ‘Husbandry’ in the name of his organization.
So, Ya. I googled it.
Turns out you cannot use the word ‘Husbandry’ and expect the rest of the world to relate it to ‘husbands’.
They will, instead, think you are talking about the ‘care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals’. Or they will think you are talking about the conservation of resources. And also, those resources will not – most likely – be husbands.
So, even though the acronym created by the ‘Worldwide Husbandry Establishment for Injustices Resulting in Disillusionment’ is rather, well, awesome… I believe I have discredited the actuality (another lawyer-y term) of the organization on the Essence of Understandability statute (ref: EoU Statue 600854.454)
I have noticed that all legal-y stuff references things with numbers that are probably just used to sound official and off-putting.
The defense notes that Mr. Dingle has addressed the letter to one ‘Mr. John M. Morse, President’ and ‘Mr. Peter Sokolowski, Editor at Large’ at the Merriam Webster offices in Springfield, Massachusetts. We concede that these people exist and will not be disputing their real-ish-ness.
We will also not bring to the court’s attention the melodramatic-ality of phrases such as ‘tragic miscarriage of justice so devious, yet so subtly carried out on a daily basis…’ nor ‘…never before has there been an emotional and psychological torture inflicted on man as heinous as the word ‘nearly’.
But we do require documentation relative to the claim, ‘Throughout the ages, woman has continually found ways to torture man on an emotional and psychological level’.
That’s just thesis, your honor.
We want proof.
And it needs to be provided in a lab report.
Using the scientific method, please.
We do acquiesce that Mr. Dingle makes and excellent point when he says, “Mr Morse, in an August 2012 interview you were quoted as saying that “…each new Collegiate edition… has about 100,000 changes.’ and in a September 2013 interview, a Mr. Kory Stamper, Lexicographer with your firm, was quoted as saying that “To survive in the Collegiate Dictionary a defunct word must appear in books that the average high school or college student is aware of.”
That being said, Mr. Dingle is clearly in violation of punctuation etiquette as he has neglected to use several commas and this results in a clear inability for others to extract even the most fundamental intent in his argument.
I, for one, thought he was giving me the recipe for waffles.
Which is gross, so I move that we do not allow his attempt at argumentative factuality into evidence.
Lastly, we dispute one final element of Mr. Dingle’s letter.
I cannot read his signature.
I have never been able to read his signature.
I think, actually, that it reads: “P”, “space”, “P” “y” “backwards candy cane” “i” “check mark” “J”
That is not even pronounceable.
You can’t include that because the poor kids at Harvard Law will not even be able to present it as a part of the case study.
We accept the authenticity of Mr. Dingle’s notarization.
We are familiar with this Mr. Joseph G. Salvucci. He is a decent and honorable man, and we feel his involvement in this situation was not complicit. We believe he was tricked.
The defense rests.
You are ready to render a verdict this quickly, without the need to examine the evidence further?
It’s that clear?
nervously taps on the table.
I’ll inform the Nearly Perfect Husband immediately.
Thanks for readin’.
As always, you can come on over to Just Ponderin’s Facebook page to comment or just hang out.