The sidebar to the Dorothy Loudon interview was 10 Questions with Stephen Sondheim. I wrote most of the content for the website, but I’m pretty sure the questions for this one came directly from my boss, Bruce Kimmel.
Is there one Broadway show which you wish you’d had the chance to write?
“Marburger: Not in my judgment. Do you have photocopying machines at the Recorder’s office? If you don’t know what that means in an office setting, please tell the court you don’t know what it means in an office setting to have a photocopying machine.
Patterson: I would like to answer your question to the best of my ability.
Marburger: I’m asking you to answer that.
Patterson: So if you could explain to me what you mean by —
Marburger: I’m not going to do that because I want you — I want to establish on the record that you really don’t know what it is. I want to establish that.
Now, do you know what it is or do you not know what it is? Do you understand what that term means in common parlance or not?
Patterson: Common parlance?
Marburger: Common language.
Patterson: I’m sorry. I didn’t know what that meant. I understand that there are photocopying machines, and there are different types of them just like —
Marburger: Are there any in the Recorder’s office?
Patterson: — there are different cars. Some of them run under gas power, some of them under electric power, and I’m asking if you could help me out by explaining what you mean by “photocopying machines” —
Marburger: That’s a great point.
Patterson: — instead of trying to make me feel stupid.
Marburger: If you feel stupid, it’s not because I’m making you feel that way.
Patterson: I have self-confidence and I have no problem.
Marburger: I don’t think you’re stupid.
Patterson: I think — I don’t have any problem answering the question.
Marburger: I think you’re playing games with me.
Cavanagh: Dave, the word “photocopying” is at issue in this case, and you’re asking him whether something is or isn’t a photocopy machine, which is a legal conclusion —
Marburger: This isn’t a patent case. There’s no statute that defines — where I’m asking him to define technology for me. I’m asking — I want to find out from a layperson’s perspective, not an engineer’s perspective, not a technician’s perspective, but from — I have an idea.
Marburger: How about this: Have you ever heard the term “photocopier” or “photocopy” used in the Recorder’s office by anybody?
Patterson: Photocopy? I’m sure in the time I’ve been there someone has used the term.
Marburger: And have you ever heard them use it in referencing a particular device or machine within the Recorder’s office? By way of example, “can you photocopy that for me?” That’s an example of office parlance.
Patterson: That particular terminology I’ve not witnessed.
Marburger: What was the context that you’ve heard the term “photocopy” used in the Recorder’s office?
Patterson: I’m sure it’s been used. I didn’t say I remembered a specific instance.
Marburger: All right. But you have a general understanding that people have used the term “photocopy” within the Recorder’s office in terms of something that could be done there; is that true?
Patterson: I’m sure it’s been used. I don’t remember a specific instance or how it was used. I’m sure it’s been used.
Marburger: And is it fair to say that it’s been used in terms of being able to copy one piece of paper onto another piece of paper using a machine? No? Not sure of that?
Patterson: I’m sure it’s been used. I don’t recall a specific instance in which it was.
Marburger: Do you have a secretary?
Marburger: Does anybody there have a secretary?
Marburger: Have you ever heard a secretary use the term “photocopy”?
Marburger: Have you ever—do you have machines there where I can put in a paper document, push a button or two, and out will come copies of that paper document also on paper? Do you have such a machine?
Patterson: Yes, sir.
Marburger: What do you call that machine?
Patterson: Xerox.”—Identifying photocopy machine poses problem for Cuyahoga County official | cleveland.com
“conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. — it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow “Christian.”—Phil Zuckerman: Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus