General discussion


Email pet peeves

By OnTheRopes ·
Certain things about email bother me.<br><br>
1. I always request a Read Receipt.<br><br> Some of my regular email correspondents send one, others never do so I'm left wondering if I got filtered to their Spam folder or something else went wrong. How hard is it to send a Read Receipt for crying out loud? It doesn't mean you <i>have</i> to answer me, just let me know you got it. On occasion my ISP's email isn't very reliable.<br><br>
2. Answering emails in a linear fashion. <br><br>
I think that emails should flow from top to bottom in a logical fashion. If sending a reply I really do try to put it on the bottom so that it makes sense to read it from the top, the earliest message to the latest. <br><br>
Where it really gets confusing is where I'll have correspondents that always put replies on the top while I put mine on the bottom.<br><br>
Why settle for the default option in some email software? Take a second to scroll down and put the new message on the bottom.

That's two gripes that I can think of off of the top of my head. Does anyone have anything else to add? Maybe the way I 'do' email bothers you. :^0 Have at me.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by santeewelding In reply to Email pet peeves

You are having an episode of thought. Be still. It will pass.

Collapse -

I'm blaming it on the coffee.

by OnTheRopes In reply to Ropes

Now that I've gotten a good nights rest, along with some fresh ground coffee this morning, there's no telling what I'll think of next. <br><br>
BTW- Checked your email inbox lately? I've a tale to tell that I think you in particular would find quite interesting. You were actually recommended to me. You're on a list of consultants. <br>

Collapse -

Curiosity way up

by santeewelding In reply to I'm blaming it on the cof ...

Check all three. Nothing.

Is it something that can't be said in polite company?

Collapse -


by OnTheRopes In reply to Curiosity way up

It can be and has been said in polite company here at TR before but I'd much rather say it direct. After you read it you'll understand.
I've just sent a copy via gmail, lets see if that works. Let me know here if you don't get anything shortly or you could send an email to me. You know where I hide. :) <br>
Also, check your spam inbox. Maybe I'm being filtered out.

Collapse -


by santeewelding In reply to Odd.

Got it this time.

I do remember that earlier this morning I saw an entry in my personal inbox of only 2KB with a from line I didn't recognize, so I deleted without opening.

This time I saw the same, but it was 10KB. So I opened and read it.

Question: do I respond to the "from" or to you?

It is interesting and catapults me into an answer that neither of you may anticipate.

Collapse -

Reply either way and I should get it.

by OnTheRopes In reply to Okay

Looking forward to your reply.

Collapse -


by santeewelding In reply to Reply either way and I sh ...

The point, regardless of detail, rests near the end in three contiguous sentences:

"I think that what we see isn't all that there is. It can't be or else what happened...could've never happened. There's something more to life than meets the eye."

The experience was also punctuated with an entirely appropriate, "WTF was that all about!!!"

Me, I get that a lot.

The mind's eye, end of seeing and experiencing, was not equal to the task ("WTF"). Does not compute.

Okay. Assume two givens. First, the mind's eye, and second, that of which it can make no sense other than that it also is.

Components of the first, no matter how arranged and rearranged, fail to make sense of the second, other than a palms-up, not invented here; not even inventable here. Which is where you get the exasperating "there"; the "something more; the second given.

Without having to touch the second, not saying we can or not; just putting it aside, suspicious even of it being a given; turn equal suspicion to the first. Don't nobody get away with nuthin here. Besides, your mind's eye is the one in hand (isn't it?). It is the chief suspect and readily available (isn't it?).

Start there, by interrogative means of the second. WTF do you think I've been doing all along?

Collapse -

There's very little doubt that people are going to be confused.

by OnTheRopes In reply to Reply either way and I sh ...

Please don't illuminate. Thank you.<br><br> Me? I'm still mulling over your reply. Not invented here certainly applies.<br><br>
I have a book you might be interested in reading; you know the one. I'll send it to you if you'd like if you will return it after you're finished reading it. I just rediscovered it the other day and I need to get thru it again first. Just say the word.

Collapse -

Word said.

by santeewelding In reply to Reply either way and I sh ...

Take your time, both with the book and your reply, even if you don't get around to the second.

"Obscurantist" may be the word (you) have in mind.

To which of course I answer, I gotta tell you Everything all at once?

Collapse -

Ok. We've got our own little TR book club going.

by OnTheRopes In reply to Reply either way and I sh ...

I'm finishing up "Choosers Of The Slain" by James H. Cobb but the other one is definitely my next book. No doubt finding it is what triggered the memory. It was good to find it in the first place. <br><br>

Related Discussions

Related Forums