It's the thought that counts, of course.
Today being Valentine's Day, millions of people will be receiving cards from their loved ones containing messages that veer between the sickly sentimental and the X-rated via the heartfelt, and it shouldn't matter whether those sentiments are written in silver ink on glittery red card, or typed on a computer-generated e-card: what's important is the words.
Who am I kidding? Perhaps it shouldn't matter – e-cards are no doubt just as personal as the paper variety, not to mention much better for the environment – but the truth is that they feel too much like personalised spam. There's no sense of occasion about an e-card. You can't stash one away and you'll never come across it years later during a clear-out. There's nothing to keep. Who's going to print out a Valentine's email on the office printer and risk having a colleague accidentally snatch it up? (A teddy holding a heart-shaped balloon, saying "Love you, cuddly bear": no one's professional credibility could withstand that.)
E-cards are becoming ever more popular, though. A survey in the US found that a third of American adults were planning to send an e-card this Valentine's Day, with married men aged 35-44 the most likely to ping one to the ball-and-chain. Hmmn. Nothing says "I heard on the car radio it was Valentine's Day" like an e-card from your spouse.
Cards made of actual card, however (what I shall hereafter refer to as "proper cards"), can be treasured for life, or ritually burned when the relationship goes wrong. What versatility. Proper cards can be put up on the bedside table; they can be referred back to when perspective is required during a rocky patch; they're just more meaningful. E-cards may be acceptable at Christmas and at birthdays, but an e-card on Valentine's day? Come on, the shops are still open.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article