Things people write that I have to read

Okay, so apparently it doesn’t take very much skill in the written word to obtain and maintain a job in the “real world.” Here’s some proof of things that I’ve actually had to read (and respond to) at work:

“Dear ____, Please be advised of my intention to request a hearing regarding the $10,000 penalty assessed in the above captioned case. I respectively request reconsideration of the assed penalty based briefly on the following facts…” (no, there are no typos in that)

And a Work Plan that was submitted for review, proposing the following, “Borings would be advanced to below the water table, with all soil samples being field screened for the presence of VOCs. Any elevated field readings would be sampled and sent to the laboratory for analysis for VOCs and fuel oxygenates. Temporary piezometers (wells) would be installed in the boring locations, and groundwater samples obtained and analyzed for the same parameters.”
So, could you be any more vague about this? How many borings? Where? What parameters are you analyzing for, and by what method?

Recently, I received a groundwater sampling report. Now, I like my commas, but this was a little much. “Historic groundwater analytical data is, also, summarized on the attached Table. A copy of the complete laboratory report is, also, attached.” Hmm, thanks.

Finally, I once attended a meeting, where we were handed a meeting agenda. Last on the agenda (I really, really am not making this up, because honestly, I had to read it six times to figure it out), “Dynamic vs. Static Work Plans: Maximize the Reduction of Uncertainty.”

Thanks to all those out there for providing me countless hours of entertaining reading.