From BEN REES
I was intrigued by Marina Earwood’s letter (Letters, 24 February, p 52)
where she points out that the digit 6 in 1461 was changed (inadvertently no
doubt) to 9 giving 1491. This is uncannily like a problem I suffer on an
almost day-to-day basis.
My work number is almost exactly the same as another totally unconnected
business in my locality. The only difference is that my number contains a 6
and the other establishment’s number contains a 9 in the same place. I’m sure
you can guess the rest of the story.
The odd part is not the number of people who mistakenly dial 6 instead of 9
but the small number of people who honestly believe that the number of the
other place contains a 6 and not a 9.
I can only worry at the hellish consequences if they tried ringing for an
ambulance.
Advertisement
