I emptied the letterbox the other morning and discovered that the new telephone book had been delivered. My first thought was to observe that the telephone book has certainly gotten skinnier over the years. What used to be a 6 cm thick behemoth has now slimmed down to about 1.5 cm.

Somewhat later I noticed that there was a little sign on the front cover: Deel 2 van 2 (part 2 of 2). Oh? Why two parts? And then I saw that underneath this it says, “Why 2 parts? See page 1 for an explanation”. So I eagerly turn to the first page.

"Part 2 of 2. Why 2 parts? See page 1 for an explanation"

"Part 2 of 2. Why 2 parts? See page 1 for an explanation"

Now it’s probably all Dutch to you, but nowhere on this page is there a why-2-parts explanation to be found. Then I notice that there is a number in the bottom right hand corner, which says “657”. I turn over the page, and in the same place it says, “659”. Next page, “661”. Okay, so that’s the page number.

Page 657

Page 657

But where is page 1? Oh, of course, it must be in Part 1.

But where is Part 1? I then discover that we have three copies of Part 2, but not a single copy of Part 1. It’s now several days later and Part 1 still hasn’t been delivered.

I get the feeling that someone didn’t think through this idea properly. I’ll probably never find out why there are(n’t) two parts…

Categories: General


ben gras · October 8, 2010 at 17:40

(1) my thought when getting the phonebook was.. why a paper phonebook at all (much less 2 parts)!?

(2) looking at the title of this post i thought about the previous one, “love me or leaves me, part II” – but i guess we have to figure that one out for ourselves ;-)

jennie · October 8, 2010 at 18:22

(1) Of course there’s that too.

(2) Ha! I didn’t even see that. Funny coincidence (or bad planning…). I used the same post title “love me or leaves me” a couple of years ago, so that’s why the previous one is part 2 (on the infinitesimal chance that someone would actually notice, or even care, that I reused a title).

jennie · October 15, 2010 at 11:05

(2) I ended up changing the title of the previous post. I figured I was being a bit too pedantic, and it’s less confusing this way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *