desperance: (Default)
[personal profile] desperance
I just completely misread a press release, "The BBC has signed a disagreement with..."

Oh, if only. I want, nay, I demand that disagreements shall become contractual: "I disagree with what you say, and we shall both sign a statement to that effect, outlining the Heads of Disagreement and all that they imply..."

(no subject)

Date: 2009-02-13 02:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sboydtaylor.livejournal.com
I disagree with you, and I will not sign on the dotted line!! ;) j/k

(no subject)

Date: 2009-02-13 03:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] desperance.livejournal.com
Come, come. We must formalise this disagreement, or how can we ever depend on it?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-02-13 03:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sboydtaylor.livejournal.com
Well why should I give you the comfort of knowing you have a dependable disagreement for free? What it's in it for me?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-02-13 05:15 pm (UTC)
lagilman: coffee or die (Default)
From: [personal profile] lagilman
a right to full examination of any and all arguments and proofs he may bring out to support his disagreement, including those he pulls out of his arse (although you might want to have a sub-clause specifying that a duly-appointed representative will inspect those)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-02-13 05:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sboydtaylor.livejournal.com
Hmm. Tempting. Are there any actionable provisions if one party does not fully disclose their arguments, sources, and arses?

Profile

desperance: (Default)
desperance

November 2017

S M T W T F S
   1 234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags