Giblets and FMBT chapanir on why just because there exists a paper trail of memos justifying an action doesn’t mean it actually occured: (excerpt)
“Chris what you have there is a legal finding,” says Giblets.
“A consultation,” says me.
“Now all that means is that it was within Gibletsian law to sell your stuff and use it to buy a motorcycle,” says Giblets.
“But that doesn’t mean we actually sold your stuff and bought a motorcycle!” says me. “Least I don’t think we did.”
Chris gets all upset sayin “But there is a motorcycle!” which is really besides the point. I mean the memos just show that we talked about buyin a motorcycle, and the motorcycle shows that somebody bought a motorcycle but it doesn’t show who it was or how they did it or why. It is another mystery wrapped in a conundrum wrapped in a motorcycle.
No comments:
Post a Comment