4 ms·

Feels like they could have made this even simpler by reordering the exemptions. For example: The distribution, canning, processing, preserving, freezing, dryin

Feels like they could have made this even simpler by reordering the exemptions. For example: The distribution, canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing or packing for shipment of: I'm a fan of the Oxford comma and think it would still add clarity here. The semicolon solution is ham-fisted and unnecessary.

patorjk 9y ago
But doesn't that make "storing" ambiguous? It could mean "storing" of the 3 following categories, or "storing for shipment" of the 3 following categories.
- kevinmhickey 9y ago
  Fair point. I suppose that means the Oxford comma is actually necessary in this case.
logfromblammo 9y ago
It would have been even clearer as Any activity necessary to prevent the spoilage of comestible goods prior to their arrival at a market where they may be offered for sale to consumers, including, but not limited to, the activities specified in subsection (1) and the goods specified in subsection (2). (1) Activities: (a) Canning, (b) Processing, (c) Preserving, (d) Freezing, (e) Drying, (f) Marketing, (g) Storing, (h) Packing for shipment, or (i) Distribution. (2) Goods: (a) Agricultural produce, (b) Meat products, (c) Fish products, or (d) Perishable foods. A lawyer would then be able to specifically address the relevant portion of the law, by labeling the plaintiffs as satisfying both (1)(i) and (2)(d), along with satisfying the overall criterion of getting a perishable comestible to market prior to its spoilage. Writing the intent of the law into the actual law is a great way to keep lawyers from arguing over commas. What we want is for them to argue about whether pasteurized dairy goods would have spoiled if the drivers had worked a normal shift. Presumably, they would have been kept in refrigerators overnight? But it would have been even clearer to not have the law at all. The businesses that benefited from it would just have to pay more for the labor capacity that they clearly anticipated, since they got a legislator to pass this law for them. Need more driver labor to get your milk to market? Hire another driver or pay your existing drivers overtime!

patorjk 9y ago

But doesn't that make "storing" ambiguous? It could mean "storing" of the 3 following categories, or "storing for shipment" of the 3 following categories.

kevinmhickey 9y ago
Fair point. I suppose that means the Oxford comma is actually necessary in this case.

logfromblammo 9y ago

It would have been even clearer as Any activity necessary to prevent the spoilage of comestible goods prior to their arrival at a market where they may be offered for sale to consumers, including, but not limited to, the activities specified in subsection (1) and the goods specified in subsection (2). (1) Activities: (a) Canning, (b) Processing, (c) Preserving, (d) Freezing, (e) Drying, (f) Marketing, (g) Storing, (h) Packing for shipment, or (i) Distribution. (2) Goods: (a) Agricultural produce, (b) Meat products, (c) Fish products, or (d) Perishable foods. A lawyer would then be able to specifically address the relevant portion of the law, by labeling the plaintiffs as satisfying both (1)(i) and (2)(d), along with satisfying the overall criterion of getting a perishable comestible to market prior to its spoilage. Writing the intent of the law into the actual law is a great way to keep lawyers from arguing over commas. What we want is for them to argue about whether pasteurized dairy goods would have spoiled if the drivers had worked a normal shift. Presumably, they would have been kept in refrigerators overnight? But it would have been even clearer to not have the law at all. The businesses that benefited from it would just have to pay more for the labor capacity that they clearly anticipated, since they got a legislator to pass this law for them. Need more driver labor to get your milk to market? Hire another driver or pay your existing drivers overtime!