Adding: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Twitter has the concept of the twitter canoe - an exchange you sometimes find yourself in the middle of, where conspiracy theorists or trumpist wingnut launch into impassioned debates around you, while you sit there, grateful there's at least something in your mentions.
{{a|email|}}Twitter has the concept of the twitter [[Email canoe|canoe]] — an exchange you sometimes find yourself in the middle of, where conspiracy theorists and Trumpist wingnuts launch into impassioned debates around you, while you sit there, grateful there’s at least ''something'' in your mentions for once.


This has an equivalent in ordinary email: the snowballing to-all chain, made worse by the tendency to throw more unsuspecting co-workers into the canoe without warning.
Ordinary email has its equivalent to the Twitter [[email canoe|canoe]]: the to-all chain, to which you can [[reply-all]], which is punctuated by [[thx]], Millennials outraging their
elder colleagues by addressing them as [[@]]andy and the whole dismal experience snowballing when participants begin to throw unsuspecting co-workers into the canoe — and under the bus — without warning.


{{Quote|
{{email canoe}}
----
<small>'''Sent''': 1 January 2017 </small> <br>
<small>'''From''': [[Lawyer]], Mediocre </small> <br>
<small>'''To''': Already large distribution (irritated) </small> <br>
<small>'''CC''': Already large distribution (exasperated because it wasn't even relevant to them in the first place); Bob; Chip; Chuck; </small> <br>
<small>'''Re''': Already interminable rambling chain that dates back to 2010
----
Adding Chip, Bob and Chuck. <br>


}}
How — just ''how'' — will adding [[Chip]], [[Bob]] and [[Chuck]] to this [[tedious]] diatribe make things better, for them, for you, or for any of the legions of other poor saps stuck in this purgatorial conversation with you?


How — just how — is adding Chip, Bob and Chuck to this tedious diatribe going to make things better, for them, for you, or for any of the poor saps that are stuck on it?
A rhetorical question to which there is no good answer.
{{sa}}
*[[Reply-all]]
*[[Thx]]
*[[Re: Fw: RE: Re: RE: Antwort: Re: RE Re: Interminable rambling chain that dates back to 2010]]
{{egg}}
{{Published}}

Latest revision as of 18:26, 29 December 2020

The JC’s guide to electronic communication
Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Twitter has the concept of the twitter canoe — an exchange you sometimes find yourself in the middle of, where conspiracy theorists and Trumpist wingnuts launch into impassioned debates around you, while you sit there, grateful there’s at least something in your mentions for once.

Ordinary email has its equivalent to the Twitter canoe: the to-all chain, to which you can reply-all, which is punctuated by thx, Millennials outraging their elder colleagues by addressing them as @andy and the whole dismal experience snowballing when participants begin to throw unsuspecting co-workers into the canoe — and under the bus — without warning.

Sent: 24 December 2018, 12:30
From: Kaye (Operations)
To: Already large distribution (irritated)
CC: Already large distribution (exasperated because it wasn't even relevant to them in the first place); Bob; Chip; Chuck;
Re: Fw: RE: Re: RE: Antwort: Re: RE Re: Interminable rambling chain that dates back to 2010
Adding @Chip, @Bob and @Chuck. Can you pls opine?
Thx

How — just how — will adding Chip, Bob and Chuck to this tedious diatribe make things better, for them, for you, or for any of the legions of other poor saps stuck in this purgatorial conversation with you?

A rhetorical question to which there is no good answer.

See also

Published on LinkedIn