Speaking of chain letters—I have read chain letters that contain statements like "Joe Blow broke the chain and he died." Have you ever thought through the chain of events that would have to happen in order for that statement to be true?

First, you have to assume that the original version of the letter didn't mention Joe Blow, and someone added that information later, even though the letter says you're not supposed to alter it in any way.

Suppose Nancy Jones was the one who altered the letter, in violation of the letter's instructions. Why didn't she die? Well, maybe she did die after she sent the altered letter.

Anyway, she somehow got the news that Joe Blow had died after breaking the chain. She would have to get that news before she sent out her own copies of the letter. How did she get the news?

Maybe she read it in the newspaper. But newspapers are unlikely to say, "Shortly before his death, Joe received a chain letter that he did not forward." She would have to know him, or know someone who knew him, and get the news that way. Maybe Nancy and Joe both received their letters from the same person. Call him Steve. Maybe Steve was the one who passed the information to Nancy that Joe had died.

But wait a minute. She would know of his death, but how would she know he had broken the chain? How would anyone know? People who receive chain letters and don't intend to forward them are not likely to go around telling people that, but you have to assume Joe did tell someone (maybe Steve), otherwise no one would know.

Then there is the question of timing. The letter states "You must forward this letter within five days, or else…" Now it wouldn't be fair to have Joe die before the 5 days was up—he could have changed his mind at the last minute.

So Joe must have died on the sixth day, or later. But if Nancy and Joe both got their letters on the same day, Nancy would have already sent out her own letters before Joe died.

Nancy would have to be more than one "degree of separation" from Steve. Maybe Steve sent a letter to Linda who sent a letter to Nancy. That would give Nancy enough time to alter her letter to include the news about Joe without breaking the chain herself. But it also lengthens the chain of communication, and makes it less likely that it would happen at all, let alone happen fast enough to catch up with the letters.

The whole scenario is so improbable that it is virtually impossible for it to be true, or even sincere. That is, it is hard to believe the story could even be sincerely reported by a gullible and superstitious person (if that's who you assume Nancy was). No, the person who first wrote about Joe's demise would practically have to be, not a sincere but deluded person, but a bald-faced liar.

But maybe you knew that already.