The first example occurred a few weeks ago while I was visiting family in Torrington, Connecticut. I stopped at a strip mall to run some errands and noticed the following notice taped to the door of an empty store:
In order to serve you better this branch has been closed and combined with another CitiFinancial location.
This notice is actually not surprising; banks and chain stores have been using similar wording for years to justify closing locations. What especially caught my eye here was that the sign also specifically directed patrons to a CitiFinancial branch in Waterbury, about a half hour away. I understand that closing stores is sometimes a necessary fact of business, and that closing unprofitable locations may in fact serve the customers by preventing the closure of more (or all) locations if the chain fails. But still... I can't help thinking that combining "to serve you better" and "drive a half hour farther" violates some sort of assertion.
My next example is much closer to home, on Bascom Avenue in San Jose. I was driving south when I pulled up to a stoplight behind a truck with a bumper sticker that proclaimed "Be American - Buy American." I'm not going to debate the political merits of this particular sentiment, but I had to chuckle because the bumper sticker was, as you've probably guessed, on a Toyota truck. I understand that Toyota builds many of its vehicles in the United States and that the purchaser of this particular truck may in fact have supported American assembly-line jobs. But still... I can't help thinking that "Buy American" on a vehicle produced by a foreign company violates some sort of assertion.
I'm not sure quite how to characterize the apparent illogic of my last example. I wear glasses for distance, with more correction in my right eye than my left. The last time I renewed my driver's license at the California DMV, I was able to pass the vision test with just my left eye and with both eyes, but not with my right only. The clerk informed me that I would be issued a restricted license that required me to wear glasses while driving. I was puzzled, and said to the clerk that I had heard that only one eye was required to drive. He said that was true. So I asked him, "If had been completely blind in my right eye you would have given me an unrestricted driver's license?" He said that was indeed the case!
Therefore, if I had lied and said that I had no vision in my right eye I would have not been required to have my glasses with me whenever I drive. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know whether there are medical issues having to do with compensation of one eye for the other involved in this case. I also have not done any research to verify the accuracy of the DMV clerk's answers to my questions. But still... I can't help thinking that his statement about glasses being required for someone with one good eye and one nearsighted eye but not for someone with only one good eye violates some sort of assertion.
So there are a few more examples of circumstances where recognizing the contradiction (with or without the help of an assertion) might have had a better result. These three cases are less clear-cut than the three in my first post, but regardless my initial reaction to all was "that just doesn't make any sense!" I'll invite you again to comment on whether you find these anecdotes amusing or to offer some of your own.
Tom A.
The truth is out there...sometimes it's in a blog.