Sometimes, if done carefully, the abbreviated story “works” better — if the punch line makes sense despite leaving the chunks out.
For many years, I had been under the impression that I had read the full text of a major novel of stupendous length (you can guess which one it is — yes, of the Russian sort). I later realized that it was an “abridged” version. When I then read the unabridged version, my conclusions were: the editors of the abridged edition did a better job; the chunks left out did not add to the story, and should likely have been edited out to begin with, leaving a shorter abridged edition without identifying it as an abridged edition. And finally: The Russian author was clearly too impressed with his own verbosity.
“Leaving chunks out” is often done in other contexts, as well — as in, responding to a spouse’s question, “What took you so long to come home?” — you leave out the fact that you had stopped off at a local bar and sat and drank for a couple hours. Of course, the next obvious question in that context is: “How come you smell of alcohol”?
Leaving chunks out when the motive and intent is underlined by a nefarious paradigm is where the problem resides.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management does this all of the time in their denial letters: They extrapolate only the selective portions of the medical record which will support a denial; they will ignore “the law” and the application of the law; they will make statements which “imply” certain consequences, and multiple other actions (or inactions) which leave chunks of information out.
Contact an OPM Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and make sure and force OPM to do what they are supposed to do: Of being an objective and uninterested party in the determination of your Federal or Postal Disability Retirement application under FERS.
Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.