The game itself apparently reached its peak of popularity in the mid-80s. What is so fascinating about playing the game, was that the very person who attained the highest success at it was often admired as “smart”, “intelligent” or otherwise brilliant in intellectual prowess; and yet, the name of the game itself should immediately undermine that stellar coronation of earned consolation, if by just the mere fact of admitting to possessing such tropes and tripe of information in globs of voluminous detail.
Is the thought-process as follows: Those who have such an excess and overflow of knowledge must be smarter than the rest of us precisely because, to know such ancillary details, he or she must have a greater pool and wealth of wisdom such that the overflow is reflected in the triviality of the aggregate? Or, is it that we presume knowledge – any knowledge – can be counted by quantity, and not by quality of technical output? Why would the capacity and talent of being able to respond to irrelevancy constitute a basis for admiration? And where does the line begin and end – that demarcation between knowledge and wisdom, health versus destructive fetish, or curiosity as opposed to a prurient obsession?
It reminds of the scene from one of Woody Allen’s movies, where the future wife-killer invites the couple to their apartment and begins talking to the nervous character about his stamp collection – a detail which the guest neither is interested in, nor has the slightest curiosity to pursue, and instead does his best to avoid the subject and escape without being too blatantly rude in the process. Or of the interest and hobby which leads to a career, or perhaps a successful marketing venture, as opposed to that which merely consumes one’s time and energy in wasteful degeneration of selfish delight; is there a difference, and what marks the distinction?
There is, of course, that perennial martyrdom of defining the “trees for the forest”, or the “big picture” in contrast to the details – like that scene where the Feds are pursuing Al Capone based upon a general knowledge of his high crimes and massive illegal conspiracies, but from the corner squeaks the voice of a mousy agent with wire-rimmed glasses who suggests getting him on a technicality of tax evasion; no, it is not quite as romantic a basis, but it gets the job done. And what of technicalities in all arenas of law – can one presume them to be trivial pursuits, or of utilizing the details in order to win a case where others have seen only the wider expanse of unseen legal maneuvers?
For the Federal employee or U.S. Postal worker who thinks that preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is tantamount to a trivial pursuit, the endeavor itself should be reviewed afresh. For, while the nexus between one’s medical condition and the positional duties which comprise the aggregate of one’s essential elements must be pursued in order to establish that connection to meet the eligibility requirements for a successful Federal Disability Retirement application, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, it is never a trivial matter when one is discussing the stability and security of one’s future.
In the end, it is the “details” which make the difference, and in preparing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application on behalf of the Federal or Postal employee, the attorney who assists in the Federal Disability Retirement application must always recognize that the trivial pursuit of the wider world at large is often the core foundation of the substantive content which comprises an effective OPM Disability Retirement application, and no details should be ignored in that pursuance of excellence in a Federal Disability Retirement case.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire