Skip to main content

Floosybell48 responds

I have a number of mailing lists, notably the list for the Popular Science website, as a result of which I see a string of random email addresses. What I really can't get the hang of is the number of people who resort to silly names. For every brianclegg@ or suziesmith@ there are two or three sexkitten384@ and fatbutfun33@s.

Several things strike me about this. Why would you possibly want to have a silly name for your email? Every time you tell someone you are going to be embarrassed. ('Hello, Miss Smith. This is the Inland Revenue. Could we have your email address to send your tax details? Erm, pardon? How do you spell that? Do what to a ferret? {Snigger}.') You might as well wear a tea cosy on your head.

Another striking thing is how many of these silly names end in a number. This means one thing and one thing only. Lots of other people have picked the same silly name. Now it's one thing to be called wetwipe, but it's another to be wetwipe342. People try to pick memorable numbers - but these are usually only memorable to them, so of limited use. (A worryingly large percentage on my mailing lists go for 666.)

No doubt the people who have these names will say they do it for fun. Why not? Well, yes. But it's hard not to suspect that they are lacking in self esteem (or have a very common name). Many of these email addresses seem more camouflage than fun.

grumpyoldman3921 has spoken.

Comments

  1. Thanks to Jean Hannah Edelstein for this comment on Twitter: 'It's like a weird vestige of the internet when it was an infant, isnt it?'

    It is, isn't it? Back when a) everyone on the internet was partly stoned student and b) it was all the rage to have a CB radio handle.

    But, of course, email has rather outgrown that past...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do remember that when private email addresses first started becoming widespread, round about the early 90s, that people went for 'handles' rather than versions of their names. The internet and email seemed like something you did as a hobby then, not the sort of thing you'd have on your CV. And for things like forums and mailing groups there was a genuine fear of being identified 'in real life' by some of the wilder inhabitants of the average bulletin board or news group

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with all the above except that for most non work purposes I masquerade as father of either of my two children; for all other work purposes I have a standard address ie name.surnam@company.co.uk

    A more relevant question is how many people have more than one e mail address to cater for work and non work purposes? It still makes me cross as an employer to see my staff receiving personal e mails on their office address.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou