invitations - Gawker

posts about #invitations more →
The Hottest Ticket in New York
You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
Fun: Have Dinner With Richard Edelman And Discuss Cancer
Learn Conflict Resolution With Ronn [sic] Torossian
You Are Invited To Karaoke With Flacks

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

dado
05/26/09

In reply to The Hottest Ticket in New York
I wonder if all the bork was eliminated from the woodcuts.
Reply

dado was starred dado was unstarred

iplaudius
05/26/09

In reply to The Hottest Ticket in New York
With few exceptions (among them the odious Scalia), lawyers can’t write. Period. You do not acknowledge the woodcuts. You acknowledge the gift or donation of the woodcuts. (Pace shostakobitch.)
Reply

iplaudius was starred iplaudius was unstarred

lobstr
05/26/09

@iplaudius: ..unless the woodcuts are addressing you directly..
Reply

lobstr was starred lobstr was unstarred

iplaudius
05/26/09

@lobstr: ... in which case good writing is the least of your problems. (I can hear them! The woodcuts! They’re speaking to me!)
Reply

iplaudius was starred iplaudius was unstarred

Motoko Kusanagi
05/26/09

@iplaudius: Odds are pretty goddamn high that no lawyer prepared that reception invite.

With the aliased italics and whatnot, it's got admin peon or clerk written all over it.
Reply

Motoko Kusanagi was starred Motoko Kusanagi was unstarred

1.1.1.
05/26/09

@Motoko Kusanagi:

Sorry, your comment got there first.
Reply

1.1.1. was starred 1.1.1. was unstarred

iplaudius
05/26/09

@Motoko Kusanagi: @1.1.1.: It is true that an assistant probably wrote the text of the invitation, and perhaps it is too much to expect legal professionals to review something as ephemeral as a two-dozen word invite.

Nevertheless, in defense of my criticism, I should say that I’ve read enough to know the status quo in legal writing of many different kinds, from contracts to amicus briefs to journal articles to textbooks. In my estimation, only social scientists rival lawyers in their ability to hide simple ideas in unnecessarily complicated language.
Reply

iplaudius was starred iplaudius was unstarred

Motoko Kusanagi
05/26/09

@iplaudius: Yes, I fully agree. No question about it. On the other hand, some contracts rival code in terms of the logical complexity of the ideas being expressed.

When precision matters, language gets messy fast.

Consider the questions raised by a (seemingly) simple termination clause:

I can terminate at any time upon 30 days' notice, but if I terminate, I must pay you for one year of fees.

1. What's the start point for the 30 day period? Delivery of the notice? Receipt? Calendar days or business days?

2. How is notice given? Written? Is email OK? To whom?

3. How is that "year of fees" calculated? Against last year's actual amount? What if there's no last year? Does it prorate or extrapolate? Are we talking US dollars? Calendar year or contract year?

Anyway, by the time one lawyer is done building in the answers to all of these questions, another one comes along and slaps in a whole bunch of text from various foreign documents. Now you've got to normalize them, retain the logical structure, and make sure the merged elements hold water. Plus, you've got a bunch of new questions to ask and answer based on the other lawyer's text.

Anyway, suffice it to say that negotiated documents (as with anything else) are only as good as their weakest drafter.
Reply

Motoko Kusanagi was starred Motoko Kusanagi was unstarred

iplaudius
05/26/09

@Motoko Kusanagi: Your very cogent response speaks for itself; however, I want to respond to give you the tip of the hat by agreeing with you explicitly. I was not being completely fair. As you point out, the accepted standard of legal writing all but requires a certain kind of complexity to manage subordinate or dependent information. Because lawyers must be concerned with precision—or, to put it another way, because lawyers have to defend themselves against "loopholes" and misinterpretation, they often have to write long and complex sentences. Their sentences grow ever more long and complex, because they are forced to reiterate antecedent terms and arguments as subordinate clauses. Perhaps my complaint is when lawyers let the rhetorical exigencies of, say, statutes and contracts invade other types of writing. In my opinion, such complexity should not usually be necessary in academic legal writing, for example.

There is something to be said for reducing complexity in legal writing, even in statutes and contracts: it makes the words of the law more accessible to more people. Is it possible, for a given document, to define rules interpretation (or refer to rules defined elsewhere)? Perhaps we could get to the point where complex sentences could be replaced by shorter sentences and structured lists.
Reply

iplaudius was starred iplaudius was unstarred

shostakobitch
05/26/09

In reply to The Hottest Ticket in New York
i can't make it because i refuse to acknowledge woodcuts #7 through #9. they are dead to me.
Reply

shostakobitch was starred shostakobitch was unstarred

rudi_freude
05/26/09

@shostakobitch:
How do you "acknowledge" a woodcut? Is it like signing a receipt or something?
Reply

rudi_freude was starred rudi_freude was unstarred

blix
05/26/09

@rudi_freude: Offer a firm handshake and say, "How Durer do".
Reply

blix was starred blix was unstarred

rudi_freude
05/26/09

@blix:
"Charmed, I'm sure. Albrecht right with you, I simply must try those canapes."
Reply

rudi_freude was starred rudi_freude was unstarred

blix
05/26/09

@rudi_freude: Touche!
Reply

blix was starred blix was unstarred

Aaron Altman
05/26/09

In reply to The Hottest Ticket in New York
"Woodcuts"? Call me when there's scrimshaw!!!
Reply

Aaron Altman was starred Aaron Altman was unstarred

Colonel Mustard
05/26/09

@Aaron Altman: I don't even get out of bed for less than 15 woodcuts.
Reply

Colonel Mustard was starred Colonel Mustard was unstarred

Aaron Altman
05/26/09

@Colonel Mustard: After 15 woodcuts, why would anyone want to get out of bed? ;-)
Reply

Aaron Altman was starred Aaron Altman was unstarred

I Love New Jersey
05/26/09

In reply to The Hottest Ticket in New York
This might be a good way to see if I really have the swine flu by exposing lower life forms to whatever bug I have.
Reply

I Love New Jersey was starred

Mount_Prion
05/26/09

@I Love New Jersey: I thought you meant latinas.
Reply

Mount_Prion was starred Mount_Prion was unstarred

misslinda
05/26/09

@I Love New Jersey: I'd rather be a New York lawyer than an anything from New Jersey.
Reply

misslinda was starred misslinda was unstarred

blix
05/26/09

@misslinda: Zing!
Reply

blix was starred blix was unstarred

I Love New Jersey
05/26/09

@misslinda: But lawyers are just organized criminals.
Reply

I Love New Jersey was starred

Aaron Altman
05/26/09

@misslinda: Ouch!
Reply

Aaron Altman was starred Aaron Altman was unstarred

Mount_Prion
05/26/09

@I Love New Jersey: ...but you think my lawyer's bad, let me tell you about my wife!

Reply

Mount_Prion was starred Mount_Prion was unstarred

BxgrlJeri
05/26/09

@misslinda: As a New York lawyer I approve this comment (and laugh an evil laugh!)
Reply

BxgrlJeri was starred BxgrlJeri was unstarred

BookishLookish
05/26/09

@I Love New Jersey: Oh, it's our old friend again. I thought you smelled funny.
Reply

BookishLookish was starred BookishLookish was unstarred

Mama Penguino
05/26/09

@I Love New Jersey: But what about those of us who use our ciminal license for good?

I've said it before but it bears repeating: everyone hates lawyers until they really, really need one.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

Mama Penguino
05/26/09

@Mama Penguino: Shite. That's criminal, not ciminal.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

gladys_kravitz
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
Will he be wielding a white board to tally the jello shot competition?
Reply

gladys_kravitz was starred gladys_kravitz was unstarred

theghostofsunnyvonbulow
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
Um, his father has not been dead 6 months and boy, Luke's made good use of the time.

Really poor form, Lil' Potato Head.
Reply

Vivien Smith-Smythe-Smith
01/07/09

@theghostofsunnyvonbulow: Wow, way to both contribute nothing and get in an offensive jibe about a man's dead father.
Reply

If_I_Had_a_Poodle
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
when i think of fratty i think of luke, son of tim
Reply

If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred

Hydroceph
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
No affair referred to as a "par-tay" (variously spelled) should be attended by adults. Have some dignity, people.
Reply

Hydroceph was starred Hydroceph was unstarred

bluebears
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
Is that really the invitation? Because if it is...um. wow.
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

Truculent
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
Why does the phrase "Too much too soon" crop up in my head every time Luke's name is mentioned? His famous dad dies and all of a sudden he's this jounalistic force majure. I didn't realize experience was inherited. Ted Koppel's daughter slaved in the CNN mines for years when she first got started.
Reply

Truculent was starred Truculent was unstarred

LEHLegacy
01/07/09

@Truculent: I'm sorry, do you not live in America ?
Reply

LEHLegacy was starred LEHLegacy was unstarred

Truculent
01/07/09

@LEHLegacy: Sadly, I do. It bothers me that a kid who could be good in a few years is being turned into a sock puppet of his dad and thrown into circumstances he can't handle. Put him on the overnight police beat for a year or so. Make him hang out at Congress to cover hearings and do stakeouts in the hallways. Spend some quality time working with someone really good and learn something.

Sigh.
Reply

Truculent was starred Truculent was unstarred

MsMuffinMcGuffin
01/07/09

@Truculent: I understand your point, I truly do. However, I can't begrudge him any of this. I'm sure he would trade it all to have his father back.

I know I would have.
Reply

MsMuffinMcGuffin was starred MsMuffinMcGuffin was unstarred

TheHonJudgeSmails
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
I don't know. If this is his inaugural party, I might wait for his second or third one. He should have the hang of partying down by then.
Reply

TheHonJudgeSmails was starred

Smitros
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
As with Young Luke's Times Square deal on NYE, I have to wonder about this festive career made possible only by his father's demise.

As for the event, I'm glad to be an Old and unsuitable for it. Four a.m.? Ha! The Smitrobar never closes.
Reply

Smitros was starred Smitros was unstarred

contradicto
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
Be forewarned. Nancy Pelosi is all kinds of ready to let her panties drop.
Reply

contradicto was starred contradicto was unstarred

Hydroceph
01/07/09

@contradicto: My eyes! My eyes!
Reply

Hydroceph was starred Hydroceph was unstarred

Banjo-Sea Kitten
01/07/09

@contradicto: I wonder if she's had as much extensive work done down south as she had up north. She's starting to look embalmed.
Reply

Banjo-Sea Kitten was starred Banjo-Sea Kitten was unstarred

homoviper
01/07/09

In reply to You Should Go To Luke Russert's Inaug-Eve Partay
For a minute, I thought DJ HORS D'OEUVRES was spinning.
Reply

homoviper was starred homoviper was unstarred

homoviper
01/07/09

@eXXX: and i see that's been noted above. blergh.
Reply

homoviper was starred homoviper was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion