Stick to Business, Pozhalsta

[James A. Landau]

In a message dated 07/28/2002 2:35:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Bapopik at AOL.COM writes:
>  _Adjournment Policy_
>     Adjournments should only be granted in cases in which the documentation
>  the respondent seeks to present would bear directly on a finding of guilt.
>  Adjournments should never be granted when the sole impact of the
>  documentation would be to affect the amount of mitigation.
>
>     The above policy is illegal.  Respondents are usually not lawyers.  Many
>  times, for example, they forget to bring the hospital record that would
>  explain a delay and reduce late penalties.  <snip> In the situation above,
> I almost always accept the sworn testimony and grant mitigation.

I find an ADS-related interest in the preceding, specifically in the way
Judge Popik absent-mindedly uses the jargon word "mitigation" in the last
sentence quoted above.  As a layman, I find the idea mind-boggling that
someone might get a reduction in a parking ticket fine on the grounds that he
has terminal cancer, but the existence of the quoted regulation implies that
such is an everyday occurrence in New York City courts.


> ...While I was out [indicting] a ham sandwich, this Penelope Cruz woman I
met
>  yesterday on the plane showed up at my apartment house to meet me.  It's a
>  good thing she didn't see this place.  Wait'll I tell her that I can't
>  support a frog.

On the contrary, you should have shown her your place.  If she were not
impressed by your talking dining room table, then she is not worth seeing.

I notice that by not capitalizing "frog" you avoid making an ethnic slur.
Hence you must be referring to "a frong in one's throat", which is a
continuation of the recent thread on ADS-L about hoarse horses.

---------------------Even more OT
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Ms and I spent Sunday getting lost in New York, New York, New York (our
last-minute discovery that the train we were about to take went to Queens
allow us to claim the triple repetition.)

Coming into Port Authority Bus Terminal from New Jersey, your vehicle after
descending from the top of the Palisades loops the loop twice.  It is not
common for a verb in English to be its own direct object, and here it does so
twice.

There was of all things a cop car hiding behind a billboard on the ramp
leading into Port Authority Terminal.  Yes, I am being metaphorical, as the
cop was five stories over Ninth Avenue, yet can someone supply a better
description.

The only reason I can imagine for the presence of the officer was to catch
people trying to drive the wrong way on the ramp.  Hence he was not a "speed
cop" but (as a physics professor once was quoted in Astounding Science
Fiction) a "velocity cop".

A candy/ice cream store somewhere near 58th and Broadway sells "Denali moose
track" ice cream.  A Kosher restaurant at 30th and 5th Avenue sells "fried
karats".

^ ^ ^ ^ ^?

At the WTC site I asked a police officer how to get to "Port Authority".  He
politely asked me if I meant the Bus Terminal?  As I should have realized, he
was a Port Authority police officer and hence would be ontologically
justified in answering "Present".  (And at this point I must apologize for
doubting the ADS-L correspondent who stated "Ontology recapitulates
philology.)

And this refers back to the recent thread on James Blish, who in both "Cities
in Flight" and "Seedling Stars" drew an Orwellian portrait of a possible
future evolution of the PA or NY and NJ.

       - Jim and Judy Landau

PS.  We have to keep Mssrs. Butters and Popik apart.  "Butters" is obviously
milchig.  "Popik" is a variant spelling of the Yiddish word "pupik"
("giblets") and hence is fleischig.