Filed Replies, Vol. 17
From D. Okafor, Tempe:
I submitted a giant pumpkin last spring and never heard back. The Atlantic Giant Decision says cultivated subjects are eligible. What gives?
The Atlantic Giant Decision (March 2009, Precedent 2009-03) does establish cultivated and selectively bred subjects as eligible under Section II.4, and I will not argue with it, though I continue to believe the precedent was written by someone who had never seen a filing backlog. Your submission is likely sitting behind the Saturn V brief, which Teddy has been "refiling for completeness" since 2011. Filed formal notice of the backlog to the records desk, September 23, 2026. You will hear back or you will not.
From P. Voss, Duluth:
My neighbor says a standard residential above-ground pool qualifies as thiccc. I say it doesn't. Who's right?
Your neighbor. The Silhouette Test, adopted under Amendment 1991-08, asks whether the subject presents a recognizable profile of notable lateral extension when viewed from a perpendicular angle, and a filled above-ground pool, particularly the Intex Ultra XTR series, passes that test without a recount. I note that you described it as "standard residential," which suggests you already know it qualifies and simply did not want your neighbor to be correct. That is not a cataloguing objection. That is a neighborly dispute, and I have a file cabinet for those too, though it is full.
From R. Chu, Portland:
Is the ficus in your lobby a thiccc subject? The trunk looks like it could qualify.
The ficus has been addressed. I addressed it in a memo dated February 2019, a second memo dated August 2021, and in a marginal annotation to Grievance No. 44, which is preserved in the Personnel File at /about/documents/personnel-file/. A houseplant is not a Subject. The ficus is not a Subject. The ficus is, if anything, a liability, because it drops leaves on the submissions tray and Constance considers watering it a "team-building touchpoint." Filed renewed objection to its presence to the records desk. The trunk, for the record, does not qualify. I have measured it.
From H. Bellamy, Edinburgh:
The coffee machine has been broken since March. It is now September. Can you comment?
March was the official failure date for the current machine, yes. Constance Pribyl, Director of Editorial Operations, first received my written grievance on the matter in 2018, regarding the previous machine, and promised a Q3 review. I have now experienced eight Q3 reviews without coffee. My most recent grievance, No. 47, submitted to the Personnel File on July 14, 2026, was returned with a sticky note reading "parking lot for now, Bart!" I am drinking hot water with a staple in it. The staple is from the Swingline 747 on my desk. It adds nothing. I noted the absence of resolution to the records desk and I am noting it again here, in print, for the catalogue's institutional memory, since that appears to be the only storage system in this building that has not been "modernized."
From G. Fontaine, Montreal:
The G7 just issued a joint statement on trade tariffs. Does any of this fall under your purview?
A tariff is, reduced to its operational logic, a girth criterion applied at a border rather than a submissions desk, and if the G7 had consulted the Style Guide at /about/style-guide/ before drafting their joint statement, they would have understood that a criterion without a clearly defined measurement methodology is not a criterion, it is an opinion. The current schedule of tariffs runs to several hundred pages and cites no precedent, no silhouette test, and no founding charter. Bertram published the Founding Charter in 1974. It is four pages. It has held. Filed observation on the G7's methodology to no one in particular, because no one in particular asked, which has never stopped me before.