Though not entirely novel, it is, I can safely say, nonetheless uncommon that I receive comment about what I have written. Recently I received a comment from Professor Daniel Laprès in Paris, France. Danny (as I am accustomed to call him) and I – together with “Butch” George K. Macintosh KC – were roommates together in a grand old house belonging to the convent on Spring Garden Road, Halifax while attending Dalhousie Law School in the early 1970s. To my recollection, Danny had the largest of the three bedrooms; I, the smallest.  Not that it matters.  It was a long time ago. Anyway…where was I?  Oh, yes, the comment from Danny.  Here it is:

As long as you are on such a subject, how about this enigma:
Application of this rule serves what purpose:
First word mine
Last word theirs.

Initially I strove to resolve the enigma.  I thought to attack the riddle using logic, stuff about Major Premise and Minor Premise from my days of having studied Philosophy.  I should have recognized at the outset that my analysis was not going to work because in addition to the Major Premise and the Minor Premise there was no conclusion.  So anything I may have conjectured was effectively no more than a guess because technically there was no assertion (or deductive leap) to dispute. Accordingly when that didn’t work I (fortunately) succumbed and admitted my defeat at the hands of Senior Counsel (although I will confess reluctantly and somewhat shamefully).

But rather than lie down and roll over in the grave, I first sought to redeem my indignity by asking my friend Hal at ChatGPT (Artificial Intelligence) what he suggested. Below is one of several versions offered by AI in response to the enigma:

Bill, that little couplet is doing more work than it admits.

“First word mine / last word theirs” describes a discipline of authorship and judgment. Its purpose is restraint.

Here’s what it serves.

You begin in your own voice — your premise, your framing, your responsibility. You do not hide behind quotation, authority, or hearsay at the outset. You stand up straight.

But you end by giving the other party their due — their actual position, not a caricature, not a straw man, not a summary bent to your convenience. You let their words close the door.

The rule’s purpose is threefold:

1. 1. Intellectual honesty
      You cannot claim to refute or assess a view unless you are willing to let it speak last, intact. Ending with their words forces fidelity.

   2. Moral discipline
      It prevents the cheap trick of “winning” by distortion. Lawyers know this well: misstate the opponent’s case and you’ve already lost—if not the verdict, then your integrity.

   3. Authority without arrogance
      Beginning with your own voice asserts agency; ending with theirs shows confidence. Only the insecure need the last word to be their own.

In short:
The rule exists to ensure that judgment does not masquerade as domination.

It is a quiet rule. Country-lawyer quiet. And it is increasingly ignored—which is precisely why it still matters.

Reading this and other AI interpretations of the enigma convinced me that I was in good company when it came to resolving the riddle.  If AI were having a time of it, I felt more comfortable. Naturally I shared AI’s responses with Danny, hoping that he might favour me with the unraveling of the puzzle in the face of AI’s varied rejoinders.

And so he did! Here is what he said,

Hello William,

I see my enigma sparked your interest. Thanks for the attention.
I hope you won’t be disappointed by the explanation.
The phrase is my creation from my youth as a pithy philosophy of friendship and happiness ( your subject).
Paragraph 3 in your message comes closest to my intention (“a legitimate opening to functional dialogue”).
My idea “Be the first to break the ice and let others have the last word” is a useful way to make and keep friends.

Dan

First I must observe the familiarity with which Hal referred to me (“Bill”), an algorithmic affectation which betrays the frequency with which I have consulted AI; second, Hal’s repeated magnanimity (“…that little couplet is doing more work than it admits”) which is representative of AI as an unabashed suppliant; and third, that Danny made no mention whatever of the AI responses other than to say, “Thanks for the attention.” Clearly AI was far off base when it came to resolving the riddle and carried no equity to Danny. Danny did however have the courtesy to acknowledge my possible disappointment at the explanation. To be clear I haven’t any objection to the simplicity of his strategy; however I fail to see that the mantra admits to revelation as an enigma. But I mustn’t quibble. Little things don’t carry any weight after all. And besides, it’s Christmas!

Most importantly Danny disclosed the ethic behind the paradox; it was a form of introduction. What follows is my response,

Salut, Daniel!

I quite agree that breaking the ice is important. As you know – I am certain -the product of the initiative is invariably endless communication from the other party (and seldom with a request for a rebuttal).

When I arrived in the Town of Almonte in June of 1976 I met Raymond Algernon Jamieson QC who had been in practice since 1921. His ancient law office at 74 Mill Street with Mrs. Evelyn Barker as his stenographer was my first office here. When I was introduced to Mr. Jamieson he distinguished himself immediately by asking two memorable questions: 1) How’s trade? and 2) What’s the news?  The first question caught me off guard because I hadn’t been accustomed to hear “trade” instead of “business”.  I was however to learn in short order that 90% of my clients were tradesmen, many of whom were very successful. As for the second enquiry “What’s the news?” I have learned that it is much more provocative than merely asking, “How are you today?”  The latter enquiry is guaranteed to stimulate little more than a token, “Fine, thanks, how are you?”  But asking someone, “What’s the news?” instinctively promotes far deeper excavation and instantly draws to the frontal lobe all that has recently entwined one’s existence.  So be prepared for some unanticipated intelligence! You might wish to put your parcels down for a moment.

Naturally there are those who haven’t the time for such “pithy” commentary; but for the most part I can say unreservedly the question is beyond imaginable when it comes to instilling talkativeness. Indeed regularly I mischievously employ the tactic to amuse myself – while sitting back awaiting the transcription. But apart from that vulgarity (an admission of near medical integrity), the terse enquiry is a valuable social tool to stimulate repartee.

Nor must I overlook the occasion to enlarge one’s acquaintance with local history and folklore. As John Hawley Kerry Emeritus Funeral Director (my first and most important client – and coincidentally a recruit of R. A. Jamieson QC) was wont to quip when remarking about the vast mesh of local relationships, “Whose wife, daughter or mother have I just insulted?”

To illustrate the unanticipated association, only a moment ago I had the privilege to meet with two daughters of the late Carl Killeen. Apart from the enviable celebrity of having been born in the Village of Corkery, Ontario (Corkery was founded by approximately 100 Irish families from County Cork immigrating to the region in the early 19th century, locally known as the “Peter Robinson settlers”) his roots spread out far beyond. The family is well known locally. Our former neighbours were descendants of the clan.

Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season!

Billy