Fun_People Archive
11 May
FW: Birdnest Spontenaity Imperfect

Date: Wed, 11 May 94 16:55:53 PDT
To: Fun_People
Subject: FW: Birdnest Spontenaity Imperfect

Forwarded-by: "Dave Grossman" <Dave_Grossman@msmail_router.kerner.com>
[forwards harpsichord solvency]


Dear Mrs. Eldred,

Re: policy no M0101 Certificate No: 153945

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 2 January.

I am absolutely staggered by your entirely incomprehensible response,
which is based on a phrase of gibberish so inarticulate and
inexplicable not even a professor of Litigation English could fathom
any meaning from it whatsoever.

It must be entirely beyond even the highest intellect to understand or
accept an argument which consists of no more than the phrase 'free of
particular average'.  I defy you to truthfully claim you have the
faintest idea of the origin or literal meaning of this random
collection of words, or to suggest to anyone that it has any specific
linguistic meaning whatsoever.  The response 'free of particular
average' is a response as junk-riddled and nonsensical as 'birdnest
spontaneity imperfect'.

If I asked you whether or not you took sugar in your tea, and your
answer was 'birdnest sponaneity imperfect', I could be forgiven for
thinking you were in the final tragic stages of some rare mental
disease.  If I asked you to give me a small sum of money, and you said
'No, because birdnest spontenaity imperfect,' I would then assume you
were endeavouring to obfuscate an issue premised on a fundamental
requirement to circumvent actuality.  Which means, where I come from,
trying to pull a fast one.

I note that you highlighted the relevant points on the Certificate for
my easy reference.  By that you mean putting a yellow box round the
letters F.P.A.  I am touched by your evidently profound concern for my
full and clear comprehension, and suggest you have a talent for
explanation beyond that of any ordinary human being.

In turn, I would highlight a point for you: see the bit marked on the
copy of the certificate enclosed. It seems clear from that to people
who read ordinary English (rather then Free of Particular Average
English) that my vehicle would have been insured against the risks it
says it is insured against.  Which includes theft of blasted mudflaps.

However, it is evident that your company is unwilling to consider
payment against a straightforward claim, made by a straightforward
customer, for an amount not appreciably different to the premium paid.
I do not propose to waste any more of my valuable time in trying to
waste any more of your valuable time, which is what I was trying to do,
since your company has done so well in wasting my time so far.

I would only say to you: A.P.S., which means Accordingly Particle
Statutory.  A.P.S. is a standard phrase used by people in my
circumstances when encountering people who say FPA.  APS means people
who insure mudflaps and then say they didn't, have to pay $100.00 every
time they say FPA, until such time as they are stranded, sunk, burnt,
catch fire, are in a collision or go mad or broke, or preferably the
whole bloody lot at the same time.  Thus your rejection of my claim is
automatically declined, and for your easy reference I have highlighted
A.P.S and trust that you will note this for your records accordingly.

Incidentally, a call to the company who arranged the insurance cover
for me reveals that they would have assumed that the wretched mudflaps
were insured against loss, as they were a component part of the vehicle
being shipped.  I asked them what FPA meant, and the best explanation
they could summon was 'something average'.  And they're a shipping
company.

I hope you all take it in turn to find yourselves driving behind my
truck on a muddy road in a rainstorm.  I doubt I will let you past even
if you could see to try.

You people, you break my heart.

© 1994 Peter Langston