Re: Word use: Express/ed (You have no idea what you're talking about)

["Sandy, Corinne" <CHS8 -at- CPSOD1 -dot- EM -dot- CDC -dot- GOV>]

Bill.  You are the individual who is wrong.    You know the old saying
there's nothing more dangerous than a man who thinks he knows.    "Express"
is a specific legal term.  Look it up in Black's Dictionary.  The term comes
up constantly in contractual cases when issues of ambiguity arise.  I know
this is not a legal forum but when a contract's "four corners" (meaning the
express (note no "ed") written word) creates ambiguity, then the courts go
for implied meaning.

Your opinions should be categorized as such unless you have facts which you
can cite references to (and you can use "to" at the end of the sentence, if
there's no alternative concise way to word it).  Maybe you better check into
the liability insurance for writers that is a hot topic on the net.
 ----------
From: TECHWR-L
To: Multiple recipients of list TECHWR-L
Subject: Re: Word use: Express/ed (Absurd
Date: Friday, December 09, 1994 10:59AM

Return-Path: <TECHWR-L -at- VM1 -dot- ucc -dot- okstate -dot- edu>
Received: from msmail.em.cdc.gov by router.em.cdc.gov id
    <2EE81853 -at- router -dot- em -dot- cdc -dot- gov>; Fri, 09 Dec 94 12:41:55 EST
Received: from VM1.ucc.okstate.edu by msmail.em.cdc.gov (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id
    AA29080; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 12:45:15 -0500
Message-Id: <9412091745 -dot- AA29080 -at- msmail -dot- em -dot- cdc -dot- gov>
Received: from OSUVM1.BITNET by VM1.ucc.okstate.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with
    BSMTP id 2992; Fri, 09 Dec 94 11:36:20 CST
Received: from VM1.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU by OSUVM1.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004)
    with BSMTP id 3127; Fri, 09 Dec 94 10:54:05 CST
Date:         Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:59:00 EST
Reply-To: William -dot- Hartzer -at- EMC2-TAO -dot- FISC -dot- COM
Sender: "Technical Writers List; for all Technical Communication issues"

           <TECHWR-L -at- VM1 -dot- ucc -dot- okstate -dot- edu>
From: "William J. Hartzer" <William -dot- Hartzer -at- EMC2-TAO -dot- FISC -dot- COM>
Subject:      Re: Word use: Express/ed (Absurd
Comments: To: techwr-l -at- vm1 -dot- ucc -dot- okstate -dot- edu
To: Multiple recipients of list TECHWR-L <TECHWR-L -at- OSUVM1 -dot- BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  The letter of Friday, 9 December 1994 11:01am ET
content-length: 1020
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 --
Arlen writes:
>(BTW, in case you haven't guessed, I think the word is "express" rather
than
>"expresed," and that...

Arlen, you're wrong.  Look at the original sentence again!  The statement
says
that you (or anyone else) may not copy it unless you have the written
consent
or the (author).  If you (or anyone else) are copying it(thus you have
RECEIVED permission from the author prior to your using it), you have
received
the EXPRESSED written consent of the author.

The emphasis here is WHEN exactly you received the consent of the author.
 You
may use it IF you have the expressED permission (the expressing was done in
the past because you are using it now).

If you look again, Arlen, you'll see that the official legal statement is
gramatically correct,  based on when the consent is given by the author.

As you remember, Arlen, we use the past tense (like -ED at the and of words)
to express things that happened in the past.  (No pun intended).


Look again,
Bill Hartzer (william -dot- hartzer -at- emc2-tao -dot- fisc -dot- com)