4 ms·

That second one is really good advice and the first one is really good advice if you're careful and savvy about it. However, they're both strictly dominated by

by patio11 15y ago

That second one is really good advice and the first one is really good advice if you're careful and savvy about it. However, they're both strictly dominated by doing (important) business only on paper. If you really need something resolved, the extent of your phone calls should be finding out what their mailing address is. (And I only say that because the people I used to help with this were mostly non-technical. Most of y'all could Google up the right info in your sleep.)

jacques_chester 15y ago
> However, they're both strictly dominated by doing (important) business only on paper. Agreed. Writing with two signatures trumps writing by one party which trumps verbal memories of either parties. I refer readers to the pre-eminent scholar of such matters vis-a-vis minutes, Sir Appleby: It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection. Consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, from which it emerges, with an elegant inevitability, that any decision which has been officially reached will have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials and any decision which is not recorded in the minutes has not been officially reached even if one or more members believe they can recollect it, so in this particular case if the decision had been officially reached it would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials. And it isn't so it wasn't.
- bambax 15y ago
  Or, in the words of Linton Barwick: - Get a hold of those minutes. I have to correct the record. - We can do that? - Yes, we can. Those minutes are an aide-mémoire for us. They should not be a reductive record of what happened to have been said, but they should be more a full record of what was intended to have been said. In The Loop — http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/i/in-the-loop-script-transcript.html http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/i/in-the-loop-scr...

by patio11 15y ago

jacques_chester 15y ago

> However, they're both strictly dominated by doing (important) business only on paper. Agreed. Writing with two signatures trumps writing by one party which trumps verbal memories of either parties. I refer readers to the pre-eminent scholar of such matters vis-a-vis minutes, Sir Appleby: It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection. Consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, from which it emerges, with an elegant inevitability, that any decision which has been officially reached will have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials and any decision which is not recorded in the minutes has not been officially reached even if one or more members believe they can recollect it, so in this particular case if the decision had been officially reached it would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials. And it isn't so it wasn't.

bambax 15y ago
Or, in the words of Linton Barwick: - Get a hold of those minutes. I have to correct the record. - We can do that? - Yes, we can. Those minutes are an aide-mémoire for us. They should not be a reductive record of what happened to have been said, but they should be more a full record of what was intended to have been said. In The Loop — http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/i/in-the-loop-script-transcript.html http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/i/in-the-loop-scr...