2 of 2
2
“19 Regional Words All Americans Should Adopt Immediately”
Posted: 11 July 2012 12:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2007-04-19

The overnegation in the LL post is actually in the closing quote by Mr. Gelb:

“[...]Clearly the public would miss Opera News not being able to review the Met, and we are responding to that,” he added…

The not is definitely out of place there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  349
Joined  2012-01-10

Ah. (blushes).

Well, it’s not fair to hide the offending overnegation in a portion of the article that doesn’t show up in the initial snippet.  I call that burying the lead!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 10:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1990
Joined  2007-02-19

The ruling described itself as an “order denying motion to vacate order granting motion to vacate order denying petition for review and granting review.”

Sounds like a lampoon to me. Like something from a Marx Brothers movie. Are you not sure someone isn’t not pulling your leg, Svinyard118?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 08:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  349
Joined  2012-01-10

It was a “real” legal ruling.  I do wonder if the judge was having a little fun with it (actually, I kind of hope he was).  But the description of the ruling, while needlessly indirect and confusing, was technically correct: the judge had originally denied review of a decision he made.  He later decided to vacate (the denial of review) and to review it.  The attorney who had originally won the case, and who didn’t want the prior decison to be reviewed, filed a motion that asked the judge to deny review (by vacating the order, that, itself, vacated the order that denied review).  The judge declined to do so.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2