Year: 2002

It occurs that the phrase kind of ambivalent is redundant.

The graphics staff at CHUM (CityTV, Bravo!, Space, et al.) have really dropped the ball in the last few months. Hardly a promo goes by that doesn’t have at least one major error in its onscreen text. One of the first I noticed was an ad for Grey Owl, starring Pierce Brosnon (Brosnan). Next it was Gandhi, a story of one man’s truimph (triumph). Tonight it’s the upcoming Stephen King movie marathon featuring Cristine (Christine). These are simply the first three examples to come to mind; there have been more than I’ve cared to keep track of.

It’s not like these names and titles are hard to look up; odds are the text is right in front of the person putting the promo together. It’s not like they’re unknown words. It’s not like it would take a long time to actually read the six-to-twenty words that you’re about to be broadcast to millions of potential viewers so you don’t make an idiot of yourself and your company.

I just finished editing the text of a brochure for a friend, and yes, there were minor errors in the 782-word document. But I’ll tell you something. It took ten whole minutes to read over five times, including looking up the correct spelling of two names and Strunk’s rules for comma placement. (Remember, this is over 35 times longer than the text in the promo advertisements; by my calculations, then, it would take about 17 seconds to check the ads.) She asked me to look at the document because she recognizes that the quality of the text reflects on the author. It’s a lesson the people at CHUM need to learn.

I’m hardly perfect in my writing–keep your snarky comments to yourself–but I strive to be as good as I’m able, and to learn when I make mistakes. I edit and re-edit even the simplest e-mail message, to say nothing of these weblog entries, and I correct the errors I’ve made when I notice them or when they’re pointed out. It’s a point of pride, but more than that it’s simple courtesy to the (few) people that (bother to) read what I write.

BMO’s response: no Linux support (not that the OS matters, it’s the browser), and due to the unsecured nature of email they could not respond to previous inquiries (which were, by definition, more secure than most mail that goes through their servers). A word to the wise: it’s just about impossible to send viruses as text/plain (even if you use Outlook). It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Citizens is the only bank left on the list, but they’re also the only bank that hasn’t responded to my questions.

Why are things that should be easy always so hard?

To whom it may concern at the University of Waterloo:

Inbox marketing? Nope. Opt-out? Nope. Forward this announcement to a friend? Nope. Alumni affairs office? Nope. Fundraising? Nope. University of Waterloo? Nope.

Yours most sincerely,

Peter Janes

Answers from two of the online banks as of today. ING states that they don’t support transaction download, while President’s Choice doesn’t answer specifically; both support “the current version” of Netscape, but only ING specifically mentions that Mozilla hasn’t been tested; neither support encrypted e-mail communication; and President’s Choice wins the award for the longest message with the most material unrelated to my questions (like an explanation of what 128-bit encryption is). (ING also included a plug for their interest rate, but did have a sense of humour about the blatant marketing.)

I’m disappointed that I haven’t received a reply from Citizens Bank yet, although one’s been promised at the beginning of [this] week. I like the approach they take, particularly their ethical policy (for example, they will not invest in or do business with any company that manufactures tobacco products or derives significant revenue from tobacco-related production). All things being equal–and I can’t judge that yet–they’re probably first on the list.

No answers yet from BMO.

It surprises me that no financial institutions, particularly virtual banks, support encrypted e-mail; it seems a natural progression from requiring strong encryption for transactions. I’m more surprised that signed mail seems to be completely ignored–even an overzealous virus filter that strips off attachments (like an S/MIME signature) should still allow the text portion of the message through.

I mentioned a couple of days ago that I’ve been watching Monk, Tony Shalhoub’s new show. Having given it a reasonable chance (three episodes), and as much as I like him and the character, I think I’m going to give it a pass. The whole show feels somehow forced, and the performances phoned in, not to mention the transparent plotlines.

Much as I hate to admit it, I liked the episodes of She Spies that NBC showed in July. I take that back: I don’t hate to admit it, because I really enjoyed the show. It bears a lot of similarity to Once a Thief, a Canadian TV favourite from a couple of years ago. (I was about to write that that isn’t surprising given Jeff Reno and Ron Osborn’s involvement, but in looking up the link for Once a Thief I discovered I’d misremembered, and they had nothing to do with that series. They are associated with The West Wing as writers, though, which would explain the snappy dialogue in She Spies. Weird.)

Also caught the last 15 minutes of A&E’s Lathe of Heaven tonight (note no The). I was surprised not to see any Aldebaranians, which makes me curious what else was cut; Haber’s Alzheimer-like condition was toned down from his demise in the novel, and I’m concerned that things like the solution to racial harmony (turning everyone grey, and thus causing Heather Lelache’s entire existence to disappear) will have been treated similarly. But I’ve got it on tape, and will check it out… after tomorrow night’s premiere of Jeremiah on TMN. (Hey! Ingrid Kavelaars, who’s from Glencoe, is in Jeremiah. Why didn’t I know that until now‽)