Trish Vickers of Charmouth, Dorset, England, lost her sight years ago, but continues to write in longhand with a system that keeps her lines straight. During a particularly creative streak, she wrote 26 pages of a novel. However, the ink in her pen had run out. Vickers only found that out when her son Simon came to check her work.
The police said they enjoyed the story as they deciphered it. Vickers usually writes only as a hobby, but may send this novel to a publisher when it is completed. Link -via Arbroath
Ms Vickers, who used to run the Bridport gift shop Zoot Allures in South Street, said: “We battled with various ideas until we thought of the police.
“We rang them and asked to speak to their fingerprint section. They said if there was anything they could do they would be happy to help.
“I was gobsmacked and so happy.”
Her son drove her and the blank pages to Dorset Police HQ at Winfrith and waited to see what would happen.
True to their word officers in the department worked in their spare time, during breaks to try and crack the puzzle and Mrs Vickers got her manuscript back last week.
She said: “I think they used a combination of various lights at different angles to see if they could get the impression made by my pen. I am so happy, pleased and grateful. It was really nice of them and I want to thank them for helping me out.”
The police said they enjoyed the story as they deciphered it. Vickers usually writes only as a hobby, but may send this novel to a publisher when it is completed. Link -via Arbroath
Firstly, I don't live in the USA, nor do I assume that everybody does. Your assumption that I am ignorant and myopic in my world view based on my nationality is invalid and prejudiced. The phrase is one that is recognizable no matter what currency you may happen to use.
You yourself recognized the statement and made an assumption based on your experiental perception of the phrase's intent.
Secondly, the article does make a point of indicating that this was done on breaks and during spare time. However, one could make the point that using police police equipment for private purposes is a violation of the trust given to the officers, and could have resulted in unnecesary wear-and-tear on the equipment (pens, paper, ink, fancy light bulbs, etc...) or made that equipment unavailable for other officers who weren't on break or their "spare time".
"Can I borrow your pen before this rapist escapes on a technicality?" "In a minute. I'm deciphering this romance novel."
Although on a much smaller scale, it's comparable to the government offical who runs up a huge dinner bill on his expense account.
Thirdly, my comment was not an "argument", since I wasn't engaged in a debate at the time, but simply making a comment on a blog post.
Fourthly, the relevancy of my comment is indisputable. The accuracy of my comment may be in dispute, as you pointed out, but the comment itself was on topic, and as further illustrated in my reductio ad absurdum argument (yes, now it's an "argument" as I chose to respond to your points almost in the manner of a debate), quite relevant. Relevancy does not equate to correctness.
Ergo, your comment is invalid.
( I do think it was a nice thing they did, by the way, so there ;P )
Second, as stated in the article, officers worked on that puzzle on breaks and during spare time.
Ergo, your argument is irrelevant.
Cheers to the lads and ladies of the Dorset constabulary!