If you watch N.C.I.S., you know Dr. Mallard. Those close to him call him "Ducky". Ducky is an older male. Older men have all sorts of experience, years of it, really. So, when this older medical examiner starts to examine a corpse showing odd signs, he tends to recall an equally surprising case from years back. At first, he cites similarities between that case and the current one. It is a long, rambling citation and only slightly relevant. But then comes a parenthetical insertion.
"Mind you, we only discovered the needle marks between the toes when his shoe began to leak water." Before that parenthetical insertion reaches its terminus, another parenthesis is inserted ("Of course, had he been wearing the typical steel-toed shoes used in lumberjacking, death would not have occured." Uh, oh a third parenthesis! - ("You know, steel-toed shoes were first made in the 30'S…
Now, we have
1.The case we are working on
The previous case with some similarities
i. A leaking toe in a shoe
a.Typical lumberjacking shoes
This is an example of a serious case of parenthicitis, an affliction of elderly, highly educated men. There is some evidence that the affliction starts when the brain is simply loaded up with too many facts.
Lucky for me, my wife is on the alert for signs of this problem developing in me. Even a single inserted remark is likely to result in a warning that the initial subject was not all that interesting but parentheses should definitely be held off for a future conversation.
