Chuckles in the midst of gloom

[ciroccoj]

Probably nobody but law junkies will appreciate this, but it gave me a chuckle. It's from a case comment (written by my prof) on a case involving negligence (or lack thereof) regarding testing the water quality in foreign-aid-installed wells in Bangladesh:

Think of Donoghue v. Stevenson: one could say that it is because humanity has several thousands of years of experience in mixing beverages, it is simple to recognize that mixing up ginger beer with a dead snail is negligent. Now think of Sutradhar v. Natural Environment Research Council: one could say that it is because humanity has only a few decades of experience dispensing foreign aid, it is hard to recognize that dispensing incomplete scientific advice about drinking water to poor people is negligent. The context of newness can be so exceedingly important that it risks to overpower the decision, and totally eclipse the facts—such as the fact that to imbibe arsenic is much more prejudicial to one's health than to imbibe dead snail.

Comments

[daf9.livejournal.com]

So after randomly reading your lj for what? maybe 3 years? I think I HAVE to add you to my flist because otherwise I will fear I might miss another gem like "to imbibe arsenic is much more prejudicial to one's health than to imbibe dead snail"

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

So after randomly reading your lj for what? maybe 3 years? I think I HAVE to add you to my flist because otherwise I will fear I might miss another gem like "to imbibe arsenic is much more prejudicial to one's health than to imbibe dead snail"
LOL!! Yeah, I'm very pleased with my prof, as he's pretty much the same in person as he is on paper. Just the right amount of cynical snark and hopeful idealism :)

And for some reason I thought we were on each other's flists already. I'm clueless.