(no subject)
Jul. 24th, 2007 09:23 pmMy debit card has become cracked, and I phoned HSBC for a replacement. I was amazed -- I was sure they'd manage to introduce administrative faff somehow or other, probably by cancelling the old one immediately, but no, they took care of it immediately.
Though I suppose they won't be putting "I called with an extremely simple request and you said you weren't going to fuck it up" on their testimonials pages.
Though I suppose they won't be putting "I called with an extremely simple request and you said you weren't going to fuck it up" on their testimonials pages.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 11:03 am (UTC)(He could conceivably have meant "cracked" in the sense of electronic crime, but surely in that case he would have wanted the old card cancelled immediately?)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 11:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 11:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 11:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 11:54 am (UTC)There were 41 emails, representing two to three fewer crack events (since some were only quoting previous usages -- eg. notification emails for this).
Excluding commercial messages, I found the senses of broken, cocaine (metaphor for addictive), whip, craic (Irish word for fun or a night out), crypto, a loud noise, to go crazy, "have a crack at", "crack team", "butt crack", and "crack out the ..." all once. Cocaine (crazy stupid) twice. And to laugh hysterically four times.
In commercial messages (generally from arts picture house) there were: cocaine (literally), "crack out" and go crazy once; crack team and broken twice; and crypto thrice.
It was never used where "hack" could be :) (Though the crypto sense is obviously related.) I obviously hang out in the wrong circles :)
It's actually really interesting: I wouldn't have realised that there were so many, nor which were most common. It's like verb tenses -- you get taught present tense as a child, but then you never ever use it again, even though you think you do.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 02:27 pm (UTC)(ack! everyone is pointing out that I'm wrong! stop it! ;-)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 03:11 pm (UTC)But Rob, it was a perfectly reasonable reading, don't worry. If you know what the alternatives are, you could tell which, but of course you get stuck with the meaning you expected.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-26 11:49 am (UTC)Of course I do -- I don't like feeling wrong or stupid, so I don't suppose anyone else does either. I would have said everyone else does the same, I'm just worse at it so its more obvious and patronising :)
OK, that's not quite fair -- sometimes it is, but I always try to be both positive and fair. But even assuming you have the right to evaluate what someone else said is a bit patronising.
I'm glad it is appreciated :)