Did I say all these posts would be pertinent? If you think they always should be, skip today’s.
Have you seen those notices that sometimes come at the bottom of e-mails? They’re typically from big companies or accounting agencies, the kind who hire lawyers and have to keep them busy. And they’re filled with gobbledygook (a second language requirement for law school) and intended, apparently, for keeping the “wrong people” from reading the information in the e-mail that’s just been sent. Of course, by the time you’ve read it, you’ve read it. And if you’re not the right person, then, well, you may be in some sort of trouble. Someone sent it to you, but they’re not liable, they’re innocent. You as a person, however, could be deleted.
In their defense, most senders probably don’t even know these disclaimer’s are part of their e-mails, attached as they are as a standard template from the corporate office.
But just to be careful, I’ve come up with my own. And though I can’t afford a lawyer to really dress it up, here’s my take. Feel free to use it on all your official e-mails. Or write your own. (I take no responsibility.)
By the way, I’ve tried this out on a number of personal e-mails to friends. To date, none have remarked on it. Perhaps we’re just used to ignoring the small print. Or perhaps it’s just unremarkable.
Here it is:
LEGAL NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the specifically named recipient (herein named, “recipient”) and has been sent by the also specifically named sender (herein named, “sender”), and no other sender, meaning there will be no other sender implicated in having sent this particular e-mail, and if there is some other sender implied (implicated) then we, the sending agency (“sending agency”), will not be held responsible. Nor is this e-mail to be used for any purpose other than that for which is was intended, namely reading; and if the specific recipient does not read it, we (the above named “sending agency”) cannot be held liable for that either. Habius corpus, status quo, and bona fide. If in the case of multiple recipients, then the reading may be carried out multiple times. This holds specifically for those in the primary address line as well as those in the cc (carbon copy) line. Any in the bcc line will be exempted for reasons that will be obvious to the courts (see sec. 1227-a, “E-mail Protocol, Procedures and Publishing Pamphlet) (E-PPPP). Otherwise all compliance with this paragraph will be expected in due course, due process, due season, and by due diligence lest it be deemed past due and the dude be in deep due due. Habius corpus, sine pro quo, etc. If the specific recipient does read, or in the case of multiples, do read, or at least one of the multiples beside the prime addressee (“prime addressee”) does read this e-mail (bcc recipients excepted) according to the purposes for which it was intended, namely reading, then that recipient (or those recipients) is (are) invited to respond. Please be brief.
Feel free to comment.
_________
Next: “Go,” God’s instruction to us, the living, coming Sunday.
PS Haven’t subscribed? You can do so with a quick click in the right column and never miss.
And feel free to share with a friend.
Our Lives Together
Its About Life
9:13 am
In today’s ecologically aware world, it may be useful to have a line stating that only previously used and fully recycled bits, bytes, letters and words have been used in the production of this article.
9:32 am
Carpe diem! E pluribus unum, sine qua non. Quid pro quo, pro bono. Caveat lector.
10:20 am
I love it! I think it is as clear as any I’ve read (yes, I do read them at times) and as definitive. The touches of Latin are perfect. I take it you earned an A in Gobbledygook I & II?
10:28 am
ha ha, you said due due
10:51 am
Hey, you forgot the line where only the intended recipient can read it and you cannot forward it to anyone else – and it has already been forwarded to eleventy six people! But death to you if your forward it.
Isn’t gobbledygook one of the strangest animals to hatch out of a non egg?
11:26 am
Hilarious! While at Boeing, co-workers would generate their own, even tho’ the company said not necesary. People will always continue to be people! THanks for the humor today.
10:21 pm
Got a good laugh out of this one. Enjoyed the comments too. It made my head spin, just like the real “gobbledygook” ones. Just think, you could of been a lawyer!
12:03 am
Hyatt, I was cracking up while reading this tonight. The dog even came out of her crate to see what all the noise was about. Thank you for this intelligent nonsense. Laughter really is the best Medecine.
2:05 pm
I just KNEW eleventy-six was a real number! Thanks for the confirmation, Rita.
5:24 pm
A few days late in reading, but still laughing. You may soon be competing with Dave Berry.
9:33 am
This cracks me up – and I am taking you up on your offer to use it! Thanks.
7:54 am
Hysterical! You must have copied and pasted the disclaimer at the end of MY emails….it sounds strangely familiar. But you didn’t make it long enough or use enough Latin. Try harder next time though the due due was quite accurate! If you want a lawyer to “dress it up”–am happy to barter :)