Rich Rostrom: There were six people there, and they got fighting drunk on one twelve-pack of beer?If it was this stuff, maybe.Otherwise, what a bunch of wimps.

You’ve got to figure on the altitude. Booze goes a might further at 10,000 ft.

If it was this stuff, maybe.

Otherwise, what a bunch of wimps.

Jeeze, There’s no need to go off in a huff because I mildly suggested “there’s no need” to call JC dense when he wasn’t being dense. You can’t go around throwing short jabs if you’re going to have a glass jaw.

BTW, I’m no academic, and I bet I grew up in a smaller town than you did. But it was in NY, so I don’t get to do the “I’m just a country lawyer” schtick.

David McCourt: Wyolawyer, no need to personally attack JC.

Sorry,i forgot I was treading in the culture of Academia where the inhabitants take themselves so seriously. I won’t commit the faux pas of darkening those hallowed halls again.

As a final comment, if you think my comment was a personal attack, it’s obvious you grew up in a different neighborhood than I.

There are five justices on the Wyoming Supreme Court and there is no intermediate appellate court, so they are fairly busy.

What, judging cases from the other 3 Wyoming residents? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

I like the original better. “In proportion” carries the connotation of a direct relationship, so that the first drink would impair camaraderie a bit, the next a bit more, until a fight results.

I suppose it’s not perfect. Now that it’s an option, I’m voting for David’s ebb/flow construction.

And JC has a point which reflects well on his understanding.

The writer is trying to create a parallel construction in which the (a) “camaraderie” “deteriorated” — that word — as the (b) “sobriety” “deteriorated.” But he doesn’t write “the camaraderie deteriorated as did the sobriety,” or something like it. Instead he uses an awkward and unclear phrase: the camaraderie deteriorated “in conjunction with” the sobriety. . . . The stutter step of misdirection that this gives many readers is one of the things that makes this sentence a poor one.

But we know what he means, you may say. Well, yes, but. . . . Try this thought experiment. What if the had written: “the camaraderie deteriorated in conjunction with the drunkenness of the participants”? Would you take it to mean anything other than what you took the original sentence to mean? I wouldn’t.

A sentence in which antonyms may be freely exchanged without altering the meaning is one which is not too well constructed.

I still think something like “the camaraderie ebbed as the drinks flowed” does the job better and more clearly, with no resort to multi-syllable “deteriorated”s or “conjunction”s.

Oren: I would have substituted “in proportion” to mean what is intended — a relation specifying relative magnitudes. “The participants’ camaraderie decreased in proportion to their sobriety” just sounds much better to my ear.

I like the original better. “In proportion” carries the connotation of a direct relationship, so that the first drink would impair camaraderie a bit, the next a bit more, until a fight results. “In conjunction” to me leaves open the reality that a little alcohol can enhance camaraderie, while a lot can impair it.

As far as the copyright issue goes, while the work was technically Duckett’s property, the copyright wasn’t registered. There was a reasonable possibility Carlson could have stolen it. However, I doubt the tune was worth the trouble it created.

jiffy: Why not just: “As time went on, the comradery deteriorated with the sobriety of the participants.”

I was thinking “along with”, but Jiffy’s version is even better.

And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay.
– Poe, “The Masque of the Red Death”

Flash Gordon: The case was in Johnson County which is sort of ironic because the “Johnson County Wars” is a significant part of Wyoming historical lore.

The Johnson County War, a tragedy wherein a minor dispute between immigrant settlers and the wealthy established ranchers flared up into one of the worst movies ever made.

JC: I couldn’t understand its intended meaning the first time I read it.

Obviously. And the rest of your post clearly explains why.

VC commenters have very high standards, at least for the bloggers: If several commenters don’t say you’re wrong, that just means it’s a closed thread. ;-)

Camaraderie is misspelled; “in conjunction with” is latinate and too high-falutin’ a way to say “with” or “as” (and the suggested replacement “in proportion to” suffers from the same problem); sobriety doesn’t really “deteriorate”; and “participants” is rather colorless.

Other than that, it’s a great sentence. How about, off the top of my head, just the simple:

“The camaraderie ebbed as the drinks flowed.”

Please feel free to call it a turkey. Happy Thanksgiving.

I enjoy the Volokh Conspiracy very much. Keep it coming.

JRL: Seems more like an example of trying too hard to be clever, and, inevitably, falling short.

That’s a better description of most Judge Selya opinions; that guy really should put away the thesaurus.

The fight that broke out was a melee and the opinion gives a three paragraph blow by blow account of it.

In case anyone is curious, Duckett stabbed Hetler 8 times in an attempt to stop Hetler from beating Duckett’s wife. Duckett was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and the appeal was based on the trial court’s refusal to give a “defense of others” instruction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that Duckett had presented sufficient evidence to justify him to an instruction on his theory of the case. The case was in Johnson County which is sort of ironic because the “Johnson County Wars” is a significant part of Wyoming historical lore.

I don’t know what happened at the re-trial. The case is a major precedent in self defense law in Wyoming.

Huh? I think you’re easily impressed, Orin.

Skyler, you forgot to say “obviously.”

I don’t like “in conjunction” in this usage, although it’s clearly not incorrect since it is common to use it broadly to mean “at the same time & place” (as opposed to the narrower meaning of “act or instance of joining/joined objects”). This is probably a personal problem with the dilution of the word ‘conjunction’ rather than the construction of the sentence.

I would have substituted “in proportion” to mean what is intended — a relation specifying relative magnitudes. “The participants’ camaraderie decreased in proportion to their sobriety” just sounds much better to my ear.

[For those expecting an ending bracket, know that the quibbling never ends.]

“As time went on, the comradery obviously deteriorated in conjunction with the sobriety of the participants.”

(rimshot)