Please refer to my middle finger, Gregg

The BBQ Pit
1

Okay, so I work for a couple of sticklers who overly worship all things grammatical. Some of you may have noticed that I do not. That’s fine; they’re the bosses. I can play by the rules if I must, and I’ll even get downright curmudgeonly if that’s what needs to be done.

This week, I’ve been working on a massive outline-style information sheet which is to be presented to a large group of people. I devised a great, informative format and everything was going fine until I came to this impasse:

II. RANDOM CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS, OR SOMETHING

...

…F. Hawaii

…1. Senators

…a. Daniel K. Inouye (D)

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…b. Daniel K. Akaka (D)

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…2. Representatives

…a. Neil Abercrombie (D-1st)

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…b. Patsy T. Mink (D-2nd)

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…G. Montana

…1. Senators

…a. Max Baucus (D)

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…b. Conrad Burns ®

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…2. Representatives

…a. Dennis R. Rehberg (R-At Large)

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…b. Oh… shit

Montana has but one Representative. With trepidation, I consulted The Gregg Reference Manual. Yep, there it is, paragraph 1721 b.: At least two items are needed for each level used in an outline. No exceptions.

Now, let’s just ponder the monumental inflexibility of this rule for a moment. I have created an instructional outline that is mind-numbingly regular and simple to use, and which allows a reader to refer to the exact information needed simply by following the structure of the outline rather than by scanning every line. Unfortunately, because of one exception, I must now face the possibility that I will be told to restructure my entire outline so that the sore thumb of Montana doesn’t offend someone’s rigid sensibilities. Any redesign will be more complicated and less intuitive, exactly the opposite of the intent of the outline.

Fortunately, the Teeming Millions have provided me with a solution. I call it Opal’s Corollary. It is best defined by example:

…G. Montana

…1. Senators

…a. Max Baucus (D)

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments
…b. Conrad Burns ®

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…2. Representatives

…a. Dennis R. Rehberg (R-At Large)

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…b. Fuck you, Gregg!

Feel free to write this down on a Post-it note and affix it to page 502 of your Manual for future reference. Thanks, all, for helping me to make the world a better, more sensible place.

2

Dammit!!!

'Twas right about here that I thought, hmm, sounds like a perfect situation for a “Hi, Opal!”

I must admit, your solution is much better. Particularly if there happens to be an innocent Gregg on the receiving end of this outline. Imagine his distress. “What??? What the hell did I do???” What a scream.

Cool thread title, too.

3

Why not go with the ol’ military “This Page Intentionally Left Blank” routine:
…2. Representatives

      ..........................a. Dennis R. Rehberg (R-At Large)

      ................................(1) Biography

      ................................(2) Committee assignments

      ..........................b. This Representative Intentionally Left Blank

:smiley:

4

Why not, just for Montana, put every body all together.

G. Montana
… 1. Senator A
… a. crap a
… b. crap b
… 2. Senator B
… a. crap a
… b. crap b
… 3. Rep A
… a. crap a
… b. crap b

Its not as cool, but it keeps you from having to fuck with everything else.

5

Yeah, I agree with Medea’s Child. That seems like a good way to handle it.

On the other hand, if we’re just joking, everybody else’s solution made me chuckle; the “Hi Opal!” would be a great in-joke.

I actually live in Montana, and some here were dearly hoping that the results of the 2000 census would result in the re-addition (we lost our second representative 20 years ago, I think) of our second representative, but alas, it was not to be. That would have made your job easier, but truthfully, I don’t really want a couple hundred thousand people moving here just for the sake of a second representative (I don’t even like the one we’ve got! Why on earth would we need two?).

6

Why not just:

7

I’ve hit that problem several times. It fucks up outlines. (But I must side with gregg, one item in a list looks wrong.)

Could you do
… LETTER. State
…1. Senators
…2. Representatives
…a. # of districts
…b. Representative 1 (party)
…c. Representative 2

etc.

Thereby solving the montana/dakota/alaska/wyoming/deleware/vermont problem by giving you at least two items. (Even though they’re not quite the same)

8

My intention is to create a wave-like outline that works by peaks and troughs. You find the peak of the information you want, and follow it to the trough of the details.

Changing the structure of the outline at that one point merely to accomodate the bowtie-encrusted creates a visual anomaly which interrupts the even flow of information, just like everyone notices the Viking at the coctail bar. It interrupts, while a “short” wave is more likely to be ignored, in my opinion. Furthermore, I think an entry without a “tail” is redundant and still distracting. Look:

…2. Representatives

…a. Enten Harassah (D-Currently At Large)

…(1) Biography

…(2) Committee assignments

…b. There is only one Representative from the state of Annoyance

C. Isle of Manx…

If you’ve just scanned through the document, you still notice that there is not a (1) or a (2) after b. The sweepiness of the curve is anomalous and distracting, although attractive. All the writer is doing is wasting space and time, and possibly causing confusion and forcing someone to read something they don’t care about.

I say Gregg is full of shit. Avoid one-item levels, if possible. Don’t structure our goddamned lives around two-or-more-item levels.