"Grammar English for has reason", or a pedantic rant

A small govermentment meeting is discussing the wording of a sign:

‘Disabled’ badge holders, only, park here.

1: That’s no good! Remove the commas, and then it could mean that ‘disabled’ badge holders can’t do anything else there!
2: And why not remove the apostrophes? Then it could apply to people with badges that can’t walk.
1: Good idea. And we could move the ‘only.’ Do you feel like excluding people with multiple badges, or stopping disabled people parking elsewhere.
2: Oh, I think keeping those disableds locked up is a good idea.
1: Right, so we have:

Disabled badge holders park only here.

2: I don’t know, still too helpful. Why don’t we make the sign blank? No one’d ever guess what we mean then.
1: I like it. But you think small. Make it say “Guess what I’m thinking, arse-dildo!”
2: “Yeah, lets seriously fuck the public! More!”

The bold version is what the sign actually says. We all know what it means, but we have a language for a reason, guys. THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE! Ready for Gaudere’s law?

It’s not so bad on street signs, but for fuck’s sake, not on official forms, exam papers or laws, please!

How about “Parking for ‘disabled badge’ holders only”?

Much too clear.

Perhaps the people who wrote the signs were taking some tips from The Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3109/newgammar.html

Or, perhaps they MEANT that, meaning, if the disabled badge holders parked in the regular parking lot, it would fill up the lot so the regular parkers wouldnt have a place to park? nawwwww.

Still funny though! :smiley:

How about “Not for Abled Parkers”?
Any particular reason not to use the blue & white wheelchair logo?

Or how about a sign with a logo of an abled person crossed out?

Can I see this sign?

I think my English teacher wrote the sign…she’s still trying to teach Honors English 10 about capitalization and commas. Of course, she gets confused while teaching this.