THINK twice before following even the most well-meaning advice. Clare Bewick, for example, reports consulting information on “safe disposal of Closed Radioactive Sources” from the Derbyshire Net for Learning, in the English Midlands. “The person responsible for disposing of the sources must wear protective gloves and lab coat at all times whilst handling the sources,” it opens. Check. Good plan.
It then goes on: “The closed source must be removed from the wooden storage box using tongues.” Do you sue the person who was foolish enough to lend you the other tongue – or the author of the spell check that caused the surreal advice?
Advertisement
BEFORE administering “Medised for children”, a brand of paracetamol (acetaminophen) and diphenhydramine-based pain relief to his cold-ridden daughter, Gordon Copestake conscientiously read the instructions. Apparently she should not drive or operate heavy machinery and should avoid consuming alcohol. She is 6 months old.
AUTHORS of web-page disclaimers enjoy near-total creative freedom, safe in the knowledge that they are entirely unread, Feedback has previously suggested (19 May). Or nearly entirely. The online computer gaming magazine Ctrl+Alt+Del bears the message: “By reading this fine print your soul is now the exclusive property of Ctrl+Alt+Del and subsidiaries. Unauthorized use of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters, images, materials, souls, odors, and oxygen is strongly discouraged. We know where you sleep.”
“Biodiesel is – according to – “as biodegradable as table salt”. Jo Horsley is pleased to know, at last, “where all those annoying piles of sodium and noxious green gases come from”
Oliver Clarke is keen to discover how they know he has a soul. Ever suspicious, Feedback wondered whether websites might be crafting disclaimers to generate mentions like this – but a check at shows that this one has been in use since mid-November 2005. We then went on to check a dozen other websites that use similar phrases, and discovered that they all appear to be naughty, naughty plagiarists.
FEEDBACK hopes that you are not one of the many unfortunate UK residents now suffering from flooding. We can be fairly certain that you will not be flooded in exactly the manner experienced by the unlucky residents of Bideford, Devon, on the night of 24 June, according to the forwarded without comment by Stephen Wortley. “Several properties were flooded in Moreton Park Road,” to be precise, “after a stream burst its banks leaving the road under 2ft (609.6mm) of water.”
At least it must have been a flood entirely free of the destructive swirling that would normally render such accurate measurement impossible.
TOWARDS the end of last year, Feedback wondered whether there was a word for recycled bicycles (4 November 2006). Paul Swift is sure they’re tricycles, but Johan Uys suggests those that can be recycled more than once are polycycles.
We fear, though, that he’s getting himself into something of a tangle when he goes on to say a bicycle that can be recycled just once is a monocycle. And what would you call it if you recycled a monocycle?
WHATEVER the name for a recycled bicycle is, Mark Barrett suggests that the name itself is a recursonym. And he reports that after his son held a loud party a neighbour delivered a note headed “!! POLITE NOTE !!”, in large bold type underlined in red. Is this, he wonders, a fontoxymoron?
IMPRESSED is the word for David Barnard’s reaction to his can of Plasti-Kote: “Buying this instead of a typical spray paint with average solids results in: 1300 per cent less packaging; 610 per cent less smog-producing hydrocarbons; 500 per cent less hazardous air pollutants; 510 per cent less hazardous waste.”
Feedback wants to know what that negative quantity of pollutants and waste looks like – and where we can buy an infinite number of cans.
FINALLY, nothing is done in a good cause without unintended consequences. Consider this case-history letter sent to Veterinary Times by Gillian Maxwell of Durham, UK: “Several years ago I was presented with a severely depressed, anorexic Labrador dog… Clinical examination was unremarkable, as were lab profiles, yet the dog was obviously very ill… I was stumped.”
Was the dog doomed? Not at all – its health, if not its mental well-being, was, by all standard criteria, improving. The owners “just happened to mention that they had given up smoking for the new year – all five of them. The dog was suffering from nicotine withdrawal.”
Smoking in public buildings having finally been extinguished in the UK, Feedback has been feeling all twitchy with the need to report this for the benefit of pets and those who care for them.
