http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=1122331


in reply to Re: MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly
in thread MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly

Hello chacham,

Re: Your consideration of jdporter’s reply as “abusive”: I don’t think it was intended as such. It’s a paraphrase of an (in)famous quotation from Mark Jason Dominus.

And the point (as I understand it) is valid, because legalese, like Perl or any other language, has its own technical vocabulary and conventions, and so is often opaque to those of us not fluent in its use.

<anecdote>
When my mother sold her house, we took the contract to a solicitor who specialises in this area of the law. He read through the contract and removed a couple of clauses which, he said, were not in our interest. The point being that we found out what those clauses actually meant only when he explained them. On our own, we would have had to leave them in precisely because we had no idea of what they actually entailed.
</anecdote>

So the point is this: when you “edited liberally” the contract to which you refer, you were in danger of (a) using terminology which didn’t mean what you thought it did, and (b) missing gotchas in the contract which you didn’t recognise because they were buried under a weight of legalese. (This is assuming you are not yourself a trained lawyer, of course.)

Which is, I think, all that jdporter intended to convey.

Athanasius <°(((>< contra mundum Iustus alius egestas vitae, eros Piratica,

  • Comment on Re^2: MJD's Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: MJD's Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly
by chacham (Prior) on Apr 13, 2015 at 13:38 UTC

    My edits were redactions of sections saying what i could not do for 6 or 12 months afterward. I'm relatively sure there was no other intention.

    I went back and forth on considering the reply. At first i thought someone else would consider it, and was surprised when it wasn't. Considering a post when i am the recipient seems tacky. Ultimately, after realizing he has an unpleasant attitude (for example, the enlargement of "fail") i figured he either has it in for me or just a jerk to everybody. I considered it to let the people decide, even though he is a well-known person here and the chances of his post being removed was small.

    I do appreciate your explanation. However, as it needed to be explained, it wasn't quoted, and includes an expletive and epithet, i still think it is not an appropriate post.

[reply]

      You could have simply asked me to clarify. I would gladly do it. In fact, I've gone done it. :-)

      No, I'm not out to get you. I am somewhat of a jerk, sometimes, though not intentionally. I'm sorry.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
[reply]

        Thank you for responding, redacting, and clarifying. I still don't appreciate the expletive, but, that's life.

[reply]

In Section Meditations