Skip to main content

What it is to be popular

We're all used to having our email inboxes filled with adverts for dubious medicines, requests to log in from banks we don't have accounts with, and scams that claim we've won/been left a large amount of money. (Does anyone still fall for these? Why?) But there seems to be an increase in a slightly different kind of spam, which I felt merited a reply.

Dear Pamela Hill,
It was very kind of you to email me, though I was deeply disappointed to see that your email was addressed to 'undisclosed recipients'. Am I not the only one?

If you are going to use exclamation marks, please be judicious. One I can cope with occasionally. But putting eight of them after 'Hello' just makes you look flaky.

Apparently you saw my profile at 'wed Search Results'. I'm not sure what this is, but I am certain I don't have a profile there. Perhaps you were looking at Nick rather than Brian.

You rather helpfully list some of the properties one should look out for in a person you are going to have a long term relationship with. I particularly liked 'Do they speak very slowly compared to you?' I can see how one-sided a conversation would be with someone who speaks very slowly, so that's a very considerate point. You also suggest 'Can you really talk to them about absolutely anything?' I'm not one to take offense, but are you suggesting I drivel on about random subjects? This is no way to win me over.

You say 'I here by [sic] paste one of my pix.' Sadly, no pictures were attached, though I have to say given the quality of the content so far, I would be mildly suspicious that it wasn't really your photo. Unless, of course, you had intended to include one of your artworks, though crayons never scan very well.

Finally, I learn 'Am 28 years old and also from the States (USA).' Unfortunately I am not from the States (USA) or the States (anywhere else). It's nice that you are 28 years old. That's a good age to be. But try not to stay that age for too long.

Fascinating though your email was, I feel that I will not be entering into conversation with you. I probably type very slowly compared to you.


Yours in some pain,


Brian Clegg


P.S. Please tell your friend, Loveth Yak, who has also emailed, that there's something about her name that makes me giggle, which isn't a good start, and while I wish her well on her search for a 'nice and lovely friend', I'm really not the one.

Illustration produced at www.wordle.net
Labels:

Comments

  1. Carolyn Rosewood17 May 2010 at 15:41

    This made me laugh! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sarah17 May 2010 at 15:43

    I would high-five you if I could. Brilliant! (Maybe I could, since I am 27 and also from the States...)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg17 May 2010 at 16:28

    Have a virtual high-five, Sarah - and thanks, CarolRose.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 2010 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 exp...
118 comments
Read more

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...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more