Cordial Deconstruction

(Not Polite or Respectful, just Cordial.)

Archive for the ‘Thoughtful/Random Observation’ Category

2009 Junk Mail in Review

Posted by cordialdeconstruction on January 3, 2010

old fashioned spam

109 business reply envelopes from 2009

Happy New Year.

Before there was spam, there was junk mail.   It seems like every week I get some credit card offer in the mail, and most of them seem to be Capitol One card offers, but I never had any statistics to support that with, until now.   I decided to do an experiment for 2009.  For the entire year, I saved every business reply envelope that came in any mail that arrived in my physical mailbox.

The results are in.

I received 109 mail items containing business reply envelopes in 2009.  Of that 109, all but 19 were credit card offers, which makes 83%  credit card offers.  Twenty six of those credit card offers were from Capitol One, which averages out to 1 every other week (24% of the total).  I received 5 credit card offers from Citi Bank, even though I already have two credit cards from Citi Bank.  Discover sent me two offers, even though I already have a Discover card.  The NRA started sending me renewal notices 1 month after I joined, and sent me a total of 6 renewal notices over the one year I was a member.

I am tempted  to obtain 109 boxes of bricks and tape a business reply envelope to each one and drop them all off at the post office to show the senders just how much I appreciate their junk mail.

Posted in Thoughtful/Random Observation | Leave a Comment »

Am I Too Cynical About Christmas Cards?

Posted by cordialdeconstruction on December 25, 2009

I don’t send Christmas cards.  I don’t have anything against Christmas cards.  I actually enjoy receiving them, but I just can’t find the motivation to send them.  (I’ll admit it’s a result of a combination of laziness and selfishness.)

My favorite cards are photo cards from friends showing them and their families.  Those tend to stay on my fridge for a long time.  However, I don’t really care for cards from people who aren’t any kind of friends or family.  You know, the card from my car dealer, my financial guy, my insurance agent, etc.

I got an envelope in the mail the other day and thought to myself,

Oh cool, a card!

I wonder who it’s from.

Cool, it’s a photo card!

Hey, she’s pretty attractive!

Wait a minute, I don’t know her.

Was it delivered to the right address?

Yes, that’s my name and address on the envelope.

What’s on the back of the card?

Oh.

She’s my Rams ticket agent.

I don’t really care for holiday or birthday cards that are paid for out of someone’s marketing budget.  They just don’t feel sincere.  I did like the holiday card from James Randi this year, perhaps because it was a photo card.  Do you like cards no matter who their from, or could you care less if your hair salon sends you a card for Christmas?

Posted in Holiday, Thoughtful/Random Observation | Leave a Comment »

They’re All Unique (Revisiting a Concept from Fringe S2E8: August)

Posted by cordialdeconstruction on November 27, 2009

In last week’s episode of Fringe, “August”, when August told his fellow Observers that Christine should be saved because she was unique, he was told, “They’re all unique”, implying that while every individual is unique, that does not necessarily make them special or possibly that some people are more unique than others. It reminded me of conflicts I’ve had with various people about the use of the word unique that goes all the way back to my high school English teacher.

There are those who claim it is improper to use a modifier with the word unique, such as in “most unique”, or “very unique” because unique means one of a kind and thus it is an absolute concept. They claim something is either unique or it isn’t, and there is no such thing as “more one of a kind”.

I’m going to give my deconstruction of that claim in two parts. The first is to simply point out that one of the accepted definitions of the word unique is unusual or not typical. Regardless of the original meaning and use of the word, common usage causes language to evolve over time, and that includes the accepted meanings of words. The word unique is by no means unique in this regard. Frankly, Q.E.D.

However, I also contend that it is can often be (edited 12-4-9 to clarify) acceptable to modify the word unique even when it is used to mean one of a kind. Consider a closed universe that contains only seven objects, 6 of the objects are plastic spheres 6 inches in diameter, each one a different color, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple. The seventh object is a transparent glass cube 12 inches on each side. Every object in the thought universe is unique, but the cube is more unique than any of the other objects because it has more unique qualities. All the other objects share the qualities of shape, material composition, size, and that fact that they are all colored. The cube is more unique than all the other objects because it shares none of those properties with the other objects.

From a severely literal and scientific perspective, everything in this universe is unique to some degree or other. No two objects are exactly identical down all their individual constituent particles on a quantum level. In fact, if you take any two seemingly identical objects, I’d guess you probably wouldn’t even have to look at the quantum level to find the differences between them. A very close examination under relatively low magnification, say 100X, should be sufficient to find differences between almost any two objects. Even if you had two particles in identical quantum states, they wouldn’t be occupying the exact same position in time and space, and both particles would be unique in some way.

If you can’t have degrees or qualities of uniqueness, then everything is unique, and the word is irrelevant; it would probably be more irrelevant that any other word. :)

Posted in Fringe, Television, Thoughtful/Random Observation, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Attention Women Seeking Men On Line:

Posted by cordialdeconstruction on October 19, 2009

If you are a woman looking for a man on an online dating service like Match or EHarmony, here’s a few words of advice on crafting your profile.  This list applies specifically to things that catch my eye or turn me away, but I think it probably applies just as well to a good portion of the guys out there on the services.

Things to Mention to Generate Interest.

-You like watching movies and TV, especially Sci-Fi, horror, and action flicks.
-You like playing video games, especially Xbox360.  (Mentioning the Wii will only get you half credit.)
-You like watching sports.
-You enjoy a good drink now and then.
-You’re OK with sometimes staying at home and watching a video instead of  going out.

Things that will cause guys to look at your profile and pictures, but might not generate as many contacts as you think they will.

-Mentioning you’re bisexual.
-Saying you’re sexually adventuresome.
-Talking about how big your boobs are.
-Mentioning that you’re not looking for a serious or long term relationship.  Hint, if he’s looking on Match or EHarmony, he probably is looking for a long term relationship, and not scared off by a woman who says she’s looking for the same .  (OKCupid is another story.)

Things that will cause a guy to loose interest instantly.

-Mentioning that your divorce is not yet final.
-Mentioning health problems.
-Mentioning that you’re broke or don’t have enough money to complete school.
-Mentioning how fervently religious you are and how important God is in your life.  (Why are you even winking at me; did you just look at my picture without reading my profile?)

Things that will have no impact whatsoever.

-Saying you are funny, sarcastic, optimistic, intelligent caring, and interested in having fun or are interested in a match that is funny, sarcastic, optimistic, intelligent, caring, and interested in having fun.
-Saying you are looking for someone who is confident and knows what they want in life.

OK, now that we’ve established you are exactly the same as everyone else on Match and EHarmony, how about saying something to differentiate yourself? (Has anyone ever said they had no sense of humor and were a pessimist, stupid, indifferent or cruel, and hated having fun when looking for a match?)

Other things to keep in mind

Don’t mention anything you don’t like unless it’s a deal breaker.  He’s probably got dozens of matches that have been delivered to him, and he’s looking for anything to use to shrink the list to a more manageable size.

Right or wrong, this is the way I translate the answers to the question, “Do you want children?” on Match.

Definitely:

Yes, as soon as possible; I’m baby desperate.

Someday:

Yes, when the time is right.

Note sure:

Maybe, (Likely leaning towards
yes, but it’s a big choice, and wants to make sure the situation is right.

Probably not:

No, but I don’t want to look
like a child hater.

No, but it’s OK if my partner
has kids:

Lots of different potential
meanings to this one that all boil down to, “Read my lips, No new
children in our lives.”

No, I don’t want kids:

Straight forward and self
explanatory

(This table came out a little weird, but I know about jack squat about HTML, and reversed-engineered a table as best as I could.)

That is all for now.

Posted in Deadpan, Humor, Internet, Online Dating, Thoughtful/Random Observation | Leave a Comment »

Peter Anspach: A Modern Machiavelli?

Posted by cordialdeconstruction on September 21, 2009

If you are not familiar with the Evil Overlord List, I encourage you to check it out.  It’s basically a list of all the mistakes made by evil rulers in the movies and on television that lead to their downfall, presented as a what to do/ not to do list.

It struck out of the blue this past weekend that this list is essentially a modern version of Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince.   The Prince is basically a practical treatise on how a prince might gain and keep power including what pitfalls to avoid and what actions to take, and this is exactly what the Evil Overlord List is.

Link to a simpler summary of The Prince

Both works espouse rule by force rather than law, both dispassionately advocate  cold and ruthless actions to keep and maintain power, as well as offering advice on on what actions to avoid.  Both offer advice as to the types of forces used to seize and maintain power, how to fortify strongholds, what to look for in henchmen/advisers/ministers, etc.

I just wanted to share this insight on these two greats works regarding maintaining power.  That is all.

Posted in Deadpan, History, Humor, Internet, Literature, Thoughtful/Random Observation | Leave a Comment »