Search this site:


April 10, 2006 12:03 AM

Broken: U.S. Marshal scanned stamp


This was "scanned" by the US Marshals. Wink wink. If you know what we mean.

(Why use quotes around "scanned"? Wasn't it just... scanned?)


I guess it's just a word in quotes. Does everything that's in "quotes" mean something other than what it's "supposed" to? (wink)

Posted by: Trent Chernecki at April 10, 2006 12:07 AM

There was a billboard near my house that said:

Southside Chevy...where "PRICE" sells cars!

They don't believe that "price" sells cars?

A newspaper ad for the same place said:

The Best "DEALS" in town!


Yes. Broken.

Or should I say...

this is "broken."

Posted by: =David at April 10, 2006 12:12 AM

I live in a Jewish neighborhood and the sign outside one business here said

Get all your "Passover" needs



Posted by: Regina at April 10, 2006 01:43 AM

Perhaps they mean "scanned" in the sense of opened the package, watched any DVDs in it, test-wore any underpants which might be in it, etc, etc, then sealed it back up.

Hey, you never know. :)

Posted by: Alden Bates at April 10, 2006 01:58 AM

Clearly this is simply proper attribution of a quotation. Why would "Scanned," by US Marshalls Office be any different than "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," by William Shakespeare?

Posted by: Trent at April 10, 2006 02:16 AM

••-~ - Might be in quotes as a throwback to when it was "proper" grammar to put colloqialisms in quotes.

Posted by: CGB Spender at April 10, 2006 06:04 AM


You would think that when they "scan" it, they would sign it. Otherwise anyone could just slap the sticker on the box and it would look "scanned."

Posted by: joh at April 10, 2006 09:05 AM

No, no. It's the title of an autobiographical essay. Security at the U.S. Marshall's Office has gotten go efficient that they're writing essays. Personally, I found "Scanned" rather dry, yet thought-provoking. The end was rather predictable, though.

"Comment", by karen.

Posted by: karen at April 10, 2006 09:37 AM

Aside from the fact that it is a rubber stamp impression and not a sticker I agree entierly with CGB Spender and joh.

Posted by: Sean P at April 10, 2006 09:38 AM

Quotes arn't for emphasis. this is one thing that "REALLY" gets on my nerves. Like fliers that say that, say, a class is "free." it's like there's a trick. Just like hot dogs arn't food, they're "food"....

Posted by: zounds Padang at April 10, 2006 09:51 AM

Hot dogs ARE food.

Posted by: Brent at April 10, 2006 09:52 AM

How about no signature or date? That's pretty broken too. "scanned", i.e. someone opened it and looked at it, but we don't know who or when. Great. Maybe they should just leave a sticker with a smiley face that says "big brother approved"!

Posted by: sir_flexalot at April 10, 2006 10:09 AM

A Chinese restaurant near my house used to advertise Ginger Fried "Beef" and Kung Pao "Chicken" ... I never had the nerve to eat there.

Posted by: E.T. at April 10, 2006 10:42 AM

My favourite example is from the in-store ads in Tesco (UK super-market), which read 'Tesco "value" promise'.

Posted by: Rory Parle at April 10, 2006 11:14 AM

I play a MUD, and I've met more than a couple users who use singlequotes for emphasis. "Well 'this' is an interesting sentence!" I've never gotten to the bottom of where this practice comes from, but I'm guessing it's a cultural thing. Is there a part of the country that uses quotes for emphasis? Is it possible this isn't as wrong and stupid as I've thought for so many years? Or is it just wrong and stupid?

Posted by: James Schend at April 10, 2006 11:42 AM

Nothing is wrong or stupid...just different than you do it.

Posted by: JAC at April 10, 2006 12:03 PM

Can someone explain who the US Marshalls are and why they scan packages?

And did anyone notice that the spaces for where initial and date should go aren't filled in? That's obviously broken too.

Posted by: Alex B at April 10, 2006 12:29 PM

Oh, I miss the days when things were sent in brown paper wrappers(wink, wink...) & weren't scanned by the feds.

They should get credit for admitting having intercepted the package. I suspect they usually check out a lot more than they admit. Maybe they damaged the XXX DVD.

Posted by: ? at April 10, 2006 02:11 PM


Questions are a burden to other. Answers a prison for oneself...

Posted by: The new Number 2 at April 10, 2006 02:23 PM

Glad the US Marshalls are doing a good job.

I feel so much "safer" now!

Posted by: Uni_bomber at April 10, 2006 03:44 PM

why would the Marshalls being scanning US Mail? Unless it was en-route to the Bureau of Prisons, wouldn't this be the ICE's domain to scan mail?

Posted by: Captain Spaulding at April 10, 2006 03:48 PM

I don't have a problem with the "quotation" marks. It was probably a choice left to the discretion of the clerk ordering the stamps. I would have more of a problem if the gov't decided to re-order all the stamps to eliminate the "quotation" marks.

It may or may not be an grammerical an error but really it's insignificant.

Posted by: + at April 10, 2006 04:39 PM

The use of 'single quotes' in muds probably arises from the fact that there is no other way to underline or bold something in ascii text.

Posted by: Mike at April 10, 2006 05:14 PM

You don't *have* to emphasize ASCII text with single quotes. There -are- plenty of other ways to EMPHASIZE it.☺☻

Posted by: fdgdfg at April 10, 2006 06:13 PM

This reminds me of a pet store named Pet Supplies "Plus". And why is the "Plus" there? Is there another pet store called Pet Supplies? Perhaps Pet Supplies "Minus", with all your substandard pet supply needs? (Speaking of which, PetSmart stocks "Ultra Holistic Pet Food"... but that's a tale for another day.

Posted by: nick'd at April 10, 2006 06:34 PM

I'd "Scan" that. "It" is always a "blast." Heh heh, if you "get" my "drift". "Yeah" "you" "get" "it."

Don't "hurt" me!

Posted by: MinkOWar at April 10, 2006 07:54 PM

fdgdfg: however single quotes are one idea and it probably stuck. PS: don't yell =).

Posted by: Mike at April 10, 2006 08:59 PM

I have this at my school, where it says: This area is "off limits" except for during "passing periods"

Posted by: Tyler at April 10, 2006 11:51 PM

Wink Wink Nudge Nudge Know-what-I-mean know-what-i-mean

/doesn't come across well in text

Posted by: Bob at April 11, 2006 07:59 AM

For JAC -

I disagree that there is no wrong or stupid - only different from how you do things. I make money to live on by working - while some others choose to knock little old ladies down and steal their money - that is both wrong and stupid (not merely different). To say there is no wrong or stupid - only different - that is BROKEN!

Posted by: Just Me at April 11, 2006 09:35 AM

President Bush isn't wrong or stupid! He's just....


Posted by: Hellbound alleee at April 11, 2006 10:55 AM

For Just Me:

You are right! I have changed my mind. To compare a conversation on grammar and punctuation to committing a crime "is" wrong and stupid. Thank you for opening my eyes.

Posted by: JAC at April 11, 2006 11:07 AM


Just because he's using hyperbole doesn't mean there is no wrong way to use the english language :)

Posted by: MinkOWar at April 11, 2006 11:32 AM

My question is: Why are the Federal Marshalls scanning mail in the first place?

That and the fact that it is "stamped" but not signed and dated.

Hello, "1984".

Posted by: The bloke on the corner at April 11, 2006 07:18 PM

I'm reminded of the Chris Farley skit on Saturday Night Live:

...They said I didn't "shower much".

Posted by: Alex at April 12, 2006 01:30 PM

Not broken.

Posted by: shooter at April 12, 2006 06:12 PM


Explosive and biological detection in a lot of areas (especially the US Mail) has been a priority since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks.

Posted by: shooter at April 12, 2006 07:17 PM


Posted by: at April 13, 2006 03:34 PM


Posted by: at April 13, 2006 03:34 PM

Folks this is the federal government at work. Any expectation of proper punctuation is seriously misplaced...

Posted by: Nigel Pond at April 25, 2006 01:36 PM

I think 9/11 gave Bushy Wushy the perfect excuse to "Scan" your mail. if "he" wants to, why shouldnt "he" be allowed to say if "flowers" for your "grandma" is really a "threat" to security? After all, couldnt the package that clearly is too thin for any sort of explosive be considered the latest advance in bomb technology.

Obviously, not broken.

Posted by: Ducky at May 29, 2006 08:42 PM

Comments on this entry are closed

Previous Posts: