I have, it seems, a common name. First and last. Those Hugenots got about a bit. Hence I share it with quite a few folk. Some of note.
Usually this is quite fun. But then a Sunday Times journalist with my moniker wrote an expose of the Russian Mafia, so I was a bit concerned when any black cars with smoked windows drove past the house a bit too slowly.
And now this morning I was in front of the TV when Newswatch came on, pretty much starring in commentary and print... me! Only it wasn't. And this person's views were not mine at all. Now I have chosen to contribute to this programme before, and at the very least readers of this blog know it. So do most of my chums. Fortunately none of you are up at this time so it is not an issue.
But it did make me think. What was the point of the name? It could have been anyone. Even adding the town can still lead to a mis-identification of there are more than one of you.
I think it's mainly to ensure those that write in check to see if they have been mentioned, which at least means some sort of audience.
I certainly think that's true of the Telegraph system I have given up on since having a post edited (see recent previous blog). When I read the initiating article first thing there are no posts as the moderating (and editing) is taking place. But unless I have contributed I can't really be bothered to check subsequently.
Vanity, vanity, thy name is 'Cross of Ross'.
No comments:
Post a Comment