Your Web News in One Place

An Interest In:

Web News this Week

Search Archive

Some of Our Sources

View All Sources

Help Webnuz

Referal links:

Sign up for GreenGeeks web hosting
March 18, 2011 03:41 pm PDT

Reluctant witness refuses to admit he knows what a photocopier is

In this transcript from an Ohio Supreme Court Case, a Cuyahoga County office worker refuses to answer a simple question: "has the Recorder's office had photocopying machines?" The worker mainains (for ten pages!) that he doesn't know what a photocopying machine is, and can't say whether his office has one: Marburger: How about this: Have you ever heard the term "photocopier" or "photocopy" used in the Recorder's office by anybody? Patterson: Photocopy? I'm sure in the time I've been there someone has used the term. Marburger: And have you ever heard them use it in referencing a particular device or machine within the Recorder's office? By way of example, "can you photocopy that for me?" That's an example of office parlance. Patterson: That particular terminology I've not witnessed. Marburger: What was the context that you've heard the term "photocopy" used in the Recorder's office? Patterson: I'm sure it's been used. I didn't say I remembered a specific instance. Marburger: All right. But you have a general understanding that people have used the term "photocopy" within the Recorder's office in terms of something that could be done there; is that true? Patterson: I'm sure it's been used. I don't remember a specific instance or how it was used. I'm sure it's been used. Marburger: And is it fair to say that it's been used in terms of being able to copy one piece of paper onto another piece of paper using a machine? No? Not sure of that? Identifying photocopy machine poses problem for Cuyahoga County official (Thanks, Micah!)...


Original Link: http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/_TuV87Hq4oo/reluctant-witness-re.html

Share this article:    Share on Facebook
View Full Article