https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-09-16/ig-nobel-prizes-2022-maya-enema-alcohol-hallucinogen/101440422

buffy said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-09-16/ig-nobel-prizes-2022-maya-enema-alcohol-hallucinogen/101440422

I’m not sure that investigating why legalese is so hard to understand is sufficiently wacky for an ig-nobel.

Also:

“and “hereinafter” instead of “before”.”

What?

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-09-16/ig-nobel-prizes-2022-maya-enema-alcohol-hallucinogen/101440422

I’m not sure that investigating why legalese is so hard to understand is sufficiently wacky for an ig-nobel.

Also:

“and “hereinafter” instead of “before”.”

What?

Yes, I think they got that definition completely wrong.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-09-16/ig-nobel-prizes-2022-maya-enema-alcohol-hallucinogen/101440422

I’m not sure that investigating why legalese is so hard to understand is sufficiently wacky for an ig-nobel.

Also:

“and “hereinafter” instead of “before”.”

What?

Yes, I think they got that definition completely wrong.

He’s American. They think that they understand English, but, really, they’re not that good at it.

captain_spalding said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m not sure that investigating why legalese is so hard to understand is sufficiently wacky for an ig-nobel.

Also:

“and “hereinafter” instead of “before”.”

What?

Yes, I think they got that definition completely wrong.

He’s American. They think that they understand English, but, really, they’re not that good at it.

I’m relieved to find that the Internet confirms that “hereinafter” does indeed meet after here, and not before here.