If you have ever received a form letter by email you may appreciate this:
http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=20730
I would suspect any email that had that many typos. It's also suspicious that the two urls that are supposed to be for different answers are the same url.
Fal: The Amazon message is legitimate and judging from some of the posts in my link, while I had thought my intent manifestly obvious maybe I should have explained that I was merely poking fun at the typical computer-generated form letter. But when you have to explain a joke it often suffers in impact
I still wouldn't believe it with all those typos, or did you type it in rather than cut and pasting?
Fal Amazon's letter from Imran is reproduced exactly as received and will be recognized by the perceptive recipient as so typical of the computer-generated form letter that I wouldn't have to explain it, reproducing in my reply many of those "typos" in a bitter, caustic, cynical, farcical, ironical, mocking, mordacious, sarcastic and sardonic, if not witty or comical, vein. Sorry if the intent didn't shine through in its magnificence
for those who aren't carefully following this saga, at the source, the humor has finally, at long last, started to emerge (through no fault of dale's)
[see original link]
-joe (punctiliously) friday
Maybe I'm imperceptive but maybe it's just because I haven't gotten many computer generated form letters. Certainly none that are that random. It looks more like one of the scam letters.
I would suspect any email that had that many typos. It's also suspicious that the two urls that are supposed to be for different answers are the same url.
Actually, they differ by a single letter (y versus n).
It appears the letter was created by a human being (who types a bit too fast and proofreads a bit too little) but includes 'preformed' content.
Does this solve the mystery?
{Re: scam emails,
Here is my comment on the matter}
Actually, they differ by a single letter (y versus n).
Yup, you're right. I hadn't looked close enough.
tsu: I'll be first to concede that its intention might have shown through more brilliantly had I changed the sequence, deleted irrelevant elements, clauses, and sidebar, and included some explanatory intro. But as you can see from the link, if the thread hasn't yet been deleted, for my perceived omissions I was attacked mercilessly by the mentors of that hotbed of mutual recrimination