Back in May, I published a blog post with examples of
real-world situations that seemed to be begging for assertions to improve them.
I mentioned misdirected advertising, mis-scheduled TV programming, and
nonsensical cooking directions. So far I've had some positive feedback and no
one calling me an idiot for straying from strictly technical topics. Therefore,
I'd like to bring in a few more examples
that have caught my eye recently. As before, I'd really appreciate your
comments on whether this line of blogging is as fun and interesting as I hoped
it would be.
The first example occurred a few weeks ago while I was visiting family in
Torrington, Connecticut. I stopped at a strip mall to run some errands and
noticed the following notice taped to the door of an empty store:
In order to
serve you better this branch has been closed and combined with another
CitiFinancial location.
This notice is actually not surprising; banks and chain stores have been
using similar wording for years to justify closing locations. What especially
caught my eye here was that the sign also specifically directed patrons to a
CitiFinancial branch in Waterbury, about a half hour away. I understand that
closing stores is sometimes a necessary fact of business, and that closing
unprofitable locations may in fact serve the customers by preventing the
closure of more (or all) locations if the chain fails. But still... I can't help
thinking that combining "to serve you better" and "drive a half hour farther"
violates some sort of assertion.
My next example is much closer to home, on Bascom Avenue in San Jose. I was
driving south when I pulled up to a stoplight behind a truck with a bumper
sticker that proclaimed "Be American - Buy American." I'm not going to debate
the political merits of this particular sentiment, but I had to chuckle because
the bumper sticker was, as you've probably guessed, on a Toyota truck. I understand
that Toyota builds many of its vehicles in the United States and that the
purchaser of this particular truck may in fact have supported American
assembly-line jobs. But still... I can't help thinking that "Buy American" on a
vehicle produced by a foreign company violates some sort of assertion.
I'm not sure quite how to characterize the apparent illogic
of my last example. I wear glasses for distance, with more correction in my
right eye than my left. The last time I renewed my driver's license at the
California DMV, I was able to pass the vision test with just my left eye and
with both eyes, but not with my right only. The clerk informed me that I would
be issued a restricted license that required me to wear glasses while driving.
I was puzzled, and said to the clerk that I had heard that only one eye was
required to drive. He said that was true. So I asked him, "If had been
completely blind in my right eye you would have given me an unrestricted
driver's license?" He said that was indeed the case!
Therefore, if I had lied and said that I had no vision in my right
eye I would have not been required to have my glasses with me whenever I drive.
I'm not a doctor, so I don't know whether there are medical issues having to do with compensation of
one eye for the other involved in this case. I also have not done any research
to verify the accuracy of the DMV clerk's answers to my questions. But still...
I can't help thinking that his statement about glasses being required for
someone with one good eye and one nearsighted eye but not for someone with only one good eye
violates some sort of assertion.
So there are a few more examples of circumstances where
recognizing the contradiction (with or without the help of an assertion) might
have had a better result. These three cases are less clear-cut than the three
in my first post, but regardless my initial reaction to all
was "that just doesn't make any sense!" I'll invite you again to comment on
whether you find these anecdotes amusing or to offer some of your own.
Tom A.
The truth is out there...sometimes
it's in a blog.