DVLA sent back stained marriage certificate.

Viper_7

MX5huggy wrote: »

Should have got 3 certs when you got married £5 each, makes each one very special because I know there are 2 more just like it.

I for one are pleased the DVLA are not spending a fortune replacing docs that may or may not have been damaged by them.

Indeed - we had 5 done, for use such as this.

The original we framed.

Sending documents to 3rd parties is invariably going to come back in a worse state.
Do we expect the DVLA to open the documents in a protective environment, and wearing environmental suits, using cotton wool mittens to handle the paper work?

cleo1299

Pollycat wrote: »

cleo1299
As you say, the 'way I read it' - which just goes to show that the OP (as Olly300 points out below) doesn't really explain things very clearly

No, the phrase doesn't imply that this, that or the other person is at fault in this, that or the other way. "The way I read it" just means that this is the way I read it. Other people may interpret it in other ways.

- or as she prefers to put it
The fact that we both interpreted the OP's meaning totally differently proves that.

No it doesn't. It's a sign that we are interpreting the OP's meaning from different positions -- you from the position of a combatant in this quarrel, me from the position of a bystander. That doesn't necessarily mean that my interpretation is right and yours is wrong, but it does mean that your interpretation is likely to be influenced by your desire to establish that you are in the right and she is in the wrong.

I view the OP in no light whatsoever - neither favourable or unfavourable.

If you say so.

cleo1299

Pollycat wrote: »

Yes, it does happen and in this case it might have.

But if a large organisation had said that the person making a decision wasn't available until Monday (tomorrow), I'm surprised that they have made an about-turn.
It's called beaurocracy - and it rules in most large organisations.

It does, you're right. But like most of us, employees in large organisations want to protect their backs if they can, and actually being in a large hierarchical organisation sometimes gives them more leeway for doing so. If a manager finds that whoops - Clerk X really did get curry on the customer's personal papers, she might want to swiftly change course, apologize and agree to pay for a replacement, and thus make it less likely that she herself will end up carrying the can for the curry-eater.

But who knows if that's what actually happened.

Pollycat

cleo1299 wrote: »

No, the phrase doesn't imply that this, that or the other person is at fault in this, that or the other way. "The way I read it" just means that this is the way I read it. Other people may interpret it in other ways.

But if the meaning was clear, there would not be any need to 'interpret' it.

No it doesn't. It's a sign that we are interpreting the OP's meaning from different positions -- you from the position of a combatant in this quarrel, me from the position of a bystander. That doesn't necessarily mean that my interpretation is right and yours is wrong, but it does mean that your interpretation is likely to be influenced by your desire to establish that you are in the right and she is in the wrong.

Again, if the meaning was clear, there wouldn't be any 'interpreting' to do.

I'm not trying to establish that I am in the right.
All I'm doing is responding to the OP - who seems determined to keep having a go at me.
Maybe she's hoping that people will jump on her 'shi*ty bandwagon'.

If you say so.

I do. Unlike the OP, I don't insult people for no reason.

hollydays

!!!!!!...........................

cleo1299

Pollycat wrote: »

But if the meaning was clear, there would not be any need to 'interpret' it.

It's not that simple to make sure that language is unambiguously clear. That's what keeps the lawyers in business. When emotions are running high, different interpretations of the same thing are especially likely. There's nothing insulting about that, it's just the way human beings are.

Pollycat

cleo1299 wrote: »

[/COLOR]

It's not that simple to make sure that language is unambiguously clear. That's what keeps the lawyers in business. When emotions are running high, different interpretations of the same thing are especially likely. There's nothing insulting about that, it's just the way human beings are.

I didn't see anything insulting in the OP's post that we are discussing (#84).

I was actually referring to the insults she slung earlier in the thread - to me and to other posters.

cleo1299

I was just explaining that I wasn't intending any insult by my comments.

ninestonecreature

cleo1299 wrote: »

The way I read it, ninestonecreature was suggesting that you would probably go for the interpretation that the DVLA settled just to shut her up, rather than the interpretation that the DVLA settled when they realized that she would not let the matter lie.

Interpretation (b) casts ninestonecreature in a less favourable light than interpretation (a); hence ninestonecreature's deduction that (b) would be the interpretation that you, Pollycat, would go for.

You read it right, Pollycat didn't...no surprises there though.

ninestonecreature

Pollycat wrote: »

I didn't see anything insulting in the OP's post that we are discussing (#84).

I was actually referring to the insults she slung earlier in the thread - to me and to other posters.

Have you forgot the insults that were slung at me here? Jeeez we could go on and on for ever with this one. You are finding it hard to deal with that people disagree with you Pollycat, just accept it and move on!