jump to navigation

Spam is not always this amusing… August 4, 2013

Posted by Alan Yu in Culture, Language.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

For those of you old enough to be around before personal computers became a permanent fixture in everyday life, spam had a different meaning.

In 1937, the Hormel Foods Corporation introduced a meat product called “Spam”, which is still available today.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the origin of spam is apparently an abbreviation of “spiced ham”.

As the Internet started to take hold of our lives, the word became a pariah in polite company, taking on the meaning of unwanted electronic messages sent to a large number of recipients at the same time.

This modern usage of the word “spam” is said to derive from a sketch from the British comedy Monty Pyton set in a café in which every item on the menu is spam.

In 1975, the Monty Python comedy team produced a movie called Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  If you’re interested, you can watch it here.  The movie further spawned a Broadway musical in 2005 called Spamalot, which claims to be “lovingly ripped off” from the movie.

Most of us are not amused when we receive spam, which often jams our mailbox and prevents us from getting to the genuine messages of importance, but I’ve recently received a message from one Pandit Vikram, who claims to be “in charge of Sovereign Wealth Funds” in Citibank.  You may recall that no so long ago, a gentleman by the name of Vikram Pandit was CEO of CitiGroup.

The fun doesn’t stop here.  Mr Vikram promises that he can arrange an interest-free grant to me of US$10.5 million, which “will stay on CitiBank Books for 36 months” and then written off.

Mr Vikram goes on to say that Sovereign Wealth Funds in his charge usually remain dormant for years “because some leaders of the United Kingdom who made the initial deposits intended to steal the funds after leaving office”.

Unfortunately, Mr Vikram says, these depositors “are either kicked out or killed in office”.  That’s why, he continues, the funds “go into dormant mode”.

And what does this privilege of an interest free grant (someone needs to prompt Mr Vikram to look up the word “grant” in the dictionary) cost me?  40% of the US$10.5 million, apparently.  This is how much of the “grant” I need to “set aside” for Mr Vikram.

What am I to do?  I need to send Mr Vikram all my personal details and a scanned copy of my “identity”.

If you’re interested in having your identity stolen for US$6.3 million (60% of $10.5 million, after setting aside 40% for Mr Vikram), please let me know and I will give you his personal email and telephone number.

Spam on…