21 May 2013

Email for dummies

This latest ‘scandal’ on the Rock revealed by Keith Rowley is really amusing. Now, I have no doubt that some people arses are ‘cutting nails’ as the saying goes… this revealed email exchange over the Section 34 débâcle is a deal breaker if it turns out to be true. Why I find it amusing though, is that it is so obviously fake.

There are several clues which reveal right off, to those who are semi-literate in email technology, why said emails are fudged.

First of all, and most strongly telling is that Gmail, even since its inception in 2004 (when people were paying for invitations to Gmail) did not allow for 4-character usernames. Not even 5… and I know; I was there… back in 2004, you had to use 6 alpha-numeric characters or more.

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
anan@gmail.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or unnecessary spaces

Secondly, unless the Guardian was exceptionally careful in editing the AG’s columns when the AG wrote for that newspaper, I have never seen such childish spelling and grammatical mistakes from Anand Ramlogan. Sure, one can argue that most people are far more informal in emails than in a commentary column… but even so some lineament of the writing style will continue to hold true. In other words, wolf cyah play sheep. These inconsistencies are raising my doubts.

Thirdly, how improbable is it for public figures in high positions to use ‘free’ email accounts to contact each other, when they have ‘official’ government provided email? Highly improbably, though in Trinidad, the dunces who set up these official emails had me shaking my head in frustration a couple of years ago. Hotmail in particular is ‘hijacked’ pretty frequently. So, I ask again, why would they (they parties involved) use Hotmail and Gmail?

What has me is a puzzled frame of mind is trying to fathom the reason Keith Rowley would bring this up in Parliament. Is he so naive that he would fall into the clutches of desperation? Malicious? Or is he merely dotish?

And why no mention of the HNIC who was ‘Action Man’ at that time? Why was he not involved in the so-called cover up?

Time will tell, but I can bet it will be Jumbie’s First Law again.

Comments