I have a crush–either a girl-crush or a more ordinary boy-girl crush, depending on the gender of my crushee–on the person (or persons) responsible for the footnotes in the newsletter for the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
There are so many wonderful example of Anna Tator’s (well, I have to give her a name, don’t I?) work, but here’s one that landed in my email last week.
Anna reported that in South Carolina, conservators (the people who deal with the files of lawyers who die, get suspended, or go hiking on the Appalachian Trail…forever) have discovered that sometimes those files are moldy or have been infested with insects and/or rodents.
(I know: Blerrghhh. But hang in there. This gets better.)
Anna noted that the new South Carolina regs required lawyers to maintain their files in a professional manner, which she figured excluded insects and rodents. She then dropped a footnote, “Unless you are a professional entomologist or rodentologist.”
That footnote had its own footnote: “Yes, ‘rodentologist’ is a word. Rodentologists even have an association.”
That footnote had a footnote (we’re up to three so far) about the British Association of Rodentologists, aka The BAR, not to be confused with The Bar, meaning us.
A couple more footnotes, and we get to the punchline: “There are those who allege the presence in The Bar of certain species of rodents.”
Oh, Anna, I love you. Will you marry me, till rats us do part?