Many of you might remember this great scene from the most recent (most lametastic) Shrek 3, when Pinocchio* says the following:
"Well, uhh, I don’t know where he’s NOT. It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect. "
Prince (the royalty, not the artist formerly known as): "So you do know where he is?"
"On the contrary. I possibly more or less not definitely rejected the idea in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be. If that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t where I knew he was…"
Today at my awesome "lawyertype work" job (as my busfriend likes to call it), I felt just like this goofy nose-length-varying marionnette when I learned that in a particular circumstance, you have the burden of proving something is "not inconsistent" with the rest of the record. Now, I attended second grade (or "grade 2" as it's called in the Motherland), so I know a thing or two about prefixes and suffixes and their general meanings, so I know "in" usually means "not." Right?? So not inconsistent = not not consistent and the nots cancel each other out so = consistent?
(inconsistent: adj. not consistent in principles, conduct...at least, that's what dictionary.com told me, and if there is one thing I know in this world, it's that the Internets don't lie.)
I then proceeded to read several paragraphs about how "not inconsistent" is different from "consistent" because the conclusion need not be directly supported by the record ("consistent"), it just can't directly contradict anything else that has been presented (be inconsistent). So, not inconsistent does not equal consistent.
*I know "Pinocchio" looks weird but I totally checked the spelling.