91Èȱ¬

Anyone got any ideas on how to nicely tell my work colleague to eat quietly?
Anon,

Regarding the link: This might just come across as a general whinge... because it is. I think you'll find that the last moments before an event are usually just a few seconds, or minutes BUT NOT HOURS. I'm fed up with intentionally misleading headlines on the 91Èȱ¬ site. Stop it. Stop it now.
Kevin "generally miffed" Langley, Derby, UK

I'm just wondering if think tanks () are supposed to think outside the box. And if so, do they still have to think inside the tank?
Adam, London, UK

Re Matthew Cowie's (Your Letters, Monday) explanation of octopuses, there are also quite a few counter-examples where the plural is taken literally from the Greek, such as criteria and crises. Dictionaries aren't much help as they don't agree: Merriam-Webster says octopi is acceptable, the compact OED calls it incorrect. I think this is one where there's no right answer...
Mat, London

On the plural of Octopus, Matthew has it right, but even if "octopus" was of Latin descent, the correct plural form for "eight-foot" would be "octopedes" (think millipedes and centipedes). Octopi indeed!
Craig Thomson, Edinburgh, Scotland

Helen in Bath (Your Letters, Monday), I was taught during my English grammar lessons that it is accepted to use "Yours Sincerely" whether the letter is addressed to a name or not. Apparently "Yours faithfully" is deemed too old-fashioned to be of use in current modern language.
Rachel, Nottingham

I think Helen in Bath may have missed the point. The Magazine is a person; a living breathing person, who likes porridge and Segway scooters, rides the Victoria line to work... So it's perfectly correct for Lee in Manchester's "Dear Magazine" to be followed by "Yours sincerely" because the letter *is* addressed to a named person.
Nicky Stu, Highgate, London

Andi (Your Letters, Monday), it's not a question of being insensitive, it's question of credulity. I think it's fair to assume that if twins are adopted to separate family's they could, geographically, end up any where. The chance of any two randomly picked people with simply the exact same birthday date meeting by chance is really small, it needs a few assumptions (e.g. UK only) but I'd put it at some where around 1/10^6, about your chance of being hit by lightening. The chance then of meeting your twin, at random from the whole population, and getting to know each other and falling in love is astronomically small. It needs so many assumptions it's not really possible to put an exact figure on but I think in the order of 1/10^16 is conservative, it could be a lot worse if you think someone who lives in London is not as likely to meet some one who lives in Manchester. If you want a serious side our government will now no doubt legislate based on this stupidly small risk (all the above ignores that chance of being an adopted separated twin in the first place, which is hardly likely!) to make it law to record biological parents, which will be destructive in so many more circumstances.
Simon, Milton Keynes

Far be it from me to pre-empt PM (This letter was sent at 11:16, before PM let loose his/her words of wisdom) but I feel that the article on the first page of today's G2 may go some way to explaining Luke's position; the twins separation story does indeed appear to be a complete fabrication.
James, Edinburgh, UK

Re Michael from Peterborough's letter on Monday, the Belfast Telegraph would be the ultimate source for your collection of headlines - it crow-bars "Ulster" into every news story it covers, however tenuous the link. Last week we had "Britney - Ulster women give advice". I hope Ms Spears was reading.
Liz, Belfast

Dear MM, I faithfully read you every day, but alas, I do not work in an office and cannot read you till at least 6pm and therefore I suspect that my missives to you lie unread in your email in-tray and deleted as coming too late. Printing this letter would prove otherwise to all those staunch Magazine readers who also work without computers for most of the day...;)

Note: Reader's name has been omitted on the grounds of reckless emoticon useage.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?