Adding: Difference between revisions

264 bytes added ,  28 March 2017
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
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.
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.


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 canoe: the to-all chain, which is punctuated by [[thx]], people addressing their colleagues as @andy and the whole dismal experience snowballs when participants begin to throw unsuspecting co-workers into the canoe — and under the bus — without warning.


----
:<small>'''Sent''': 1 January 2017 </small> <br>
:<small>'''Sent''': 1 January 2017 </small> <br>
:<small>'''From''': [[Lawyer]], Mediocre </small> <br>
:<small>'''From''': [[Lawyer]], Mediocre </small> <br>
Line 10: Line 11:


:Adding Chip, Bob and Chuck. <br>
:Adding Chip, Bob and Chuck. <br>
----


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?
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.
 
{{egg}}