Re: Fw: RE: Re: RE: Antwort: Re: RE Re: Interminable rambling chain that dates back to 2010

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The JC’s guide to electronic communication


Click ᐅ to expand:
Email

Get in touch
Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Sign up for our newsletter? Questions? We’d love to hear from you.
BREAKING: Get the new weekly newsletter here Old editions here

That sinking feeling you get when, at 5:55pm on a Friday, an email arrives with this heading and “Adding @Mike” — you, of course, being Mike — to an email canoe that is shipping a ton of brackish water. The top line will sit above forty or fifty lateral feet, if printed out, of undiluted tedium concerning a never-especially-active account that was closed in 2006, and will usually run as follows:

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

To which the correct reply is “on what?”, for you may be assured that whatever time you spend scrolling down the chain will reveal little that can enlighten you as to what the question was, or if there even was a question, but will validate every suspicion you’ve ever had as to the inbuilt and institutional stupidity, ignorance and primordial fear that is encoded in your institution’s every impulse and those of each soul who sails in her.

Some email trails stretch back longer than some of their participants’ careers, or even lifetimes. We know of at least one query about an unclaimed client balance that started in 1994.

See also