In the interests of Christian charity, I concede everything to Phil about the ambiguity of JD’s sentence about Phil’s generality about JD’s generality about Phil’s generality. I’m chalking up the ambiguity of the antecedent of the antecedent of the antecedent, not to any devious intentions on the part of JD or Johnson to disparage their respective syntactical consistency, even though the ambiguity is ambiguous at best and capable of being read in more than one sense.
But if this misunderstanding should persist, I’d advise both parties to submit their grievances to an impartial judge. Given his legal background, perhaps Chuck Colson would be willing to adjudicate!
And if one of the two parties is dissatisfied with the verdict, I’m sure that Mr. Colson, what with his connections, could arrange for a plenary indulgence.
I have an even better suggestion: Since you guys like the machinery of secular politics so much AND hate modernity so much, let's borrow from the political methodology of the post-puritan era.
ReplyDeletePistols at dawn. Twenty paces. (The Aaron Burr solution.)
When Gen. Oglethorpe founded Savanna, he outlawed legal profession because he'd had some nasty encounters with attorneys (haven't we all?). His alternative was to settle disputes by a manly duel, the official site of which was conveniently located right next to the municipal cemetery.
ReplyDelete"In the red corner, weighing..."
ReplyDelete