What does a person mean when it is said, “Yes, that is technically correct”? Does it matter where the inflection resides, or which part of the statement is emphasized? If greater syllabic magnification is placed on the word itself, whilst the remainder of the sentence is left in a monotone of boredom, is something else being conveyed beyond the mere words declared?
What if the hesitation on the first word is elongated, as in, “Ye-e-e-s, you are technically correct.”? Or, how about this one: “Y-e-e-e-s…you ARE technically correct.”? Further, why do we always expect a conjunction to follow, as in, “Yes, you are technically correct, but…”? Does such a sentence imply that a person can also be un-technically correct? If so, what would that mean and what factors would be included in coming to such a conclusion?
What practical or real-life consequences are inherent in the truth of such a statement, such that it might alter or modify our approach to a given subject? If an engineer is building a skyscraper and turns to the architect and says,” Yes, you may be technically correct, but the entire building could nonetheless collapse” — how is it possible that the architect could be “technically correct” yet mistake the un-technical side of things such that it could result in a life-threatening disaster?
Or, in law, if a lawyer is “technically correct” but might nevertheless lose a case before a jury, does that mean that the “technical” argument in the law may not carry the day because the jury might take into consideration factors other than the law itself in rendering its collective decision? Yet, isn’t “the law” nothing more than an aggregate of technicalities to begin with, and therefore, does it even make sense to speak of being “technically correct” within the purview of the legal arena?
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are contemplating preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be technically filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether technically under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it may be technically correct that certain legal criteria must be technically met; however, when putting together a Federal Disability Retirement application, just remember that the technically sufficient Federal Disability Retirement application should always, technically speaking, contain an aggregation of medical documentation, legal argumentation and personal narrative combined to make an effective presentation, better guided by a legal technician otherwise known as a counselor, attorney or lawyer in this technically empowered universe — technically speaking, of course.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire