Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

all hail HRCFollow

#1 Jul 05 2016 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,205 posts

All hail Hillary Diane Rodham from the House of Clinton. Light of lights, Queen of queens, may she rein for two thousand years.

Comey sounds so reasonable. There was certainly no intent with lawyers deleting emails. No way. It is not like HRS was asked for all emails. I love that he claims that 'no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case' against HRC. Makes sense, who would go after someone who is immune from prosecution. Sounds like a career ending mistake. I personally loved his assurances that he would go after ordinary people who would dare to commit such a transgression with the full power of the law.

Anyhoo, so now a minor drone becomes a scapegoat for the administrative sanctions as Comey mentioned and life goes on. Phew. And the political class is surprised that regular people are actually considering people like Trump for the top office?

******* cryst on a stick. What the actual ****.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Jul 05 2016 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
3,219 posts
Reign, even
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#3 Jul 05 2016 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
HRC! HRC! HRC! HRC!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Jul 05 2016 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,205 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Reign, even


Sigh, I am so sorry oh great spotter of errors. May I leave this for your persusal and elucidation?

Edited, Jul 5th 2016 7:53pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#5 Jul 05 2016 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,219 posts
No, thanks anyway.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#6 Jul 05 2016 at 5:54 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,205 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
No, thanks anyway.


How about now? I changed the link to include abstract -- just for you.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#7 Jul 05 2016 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,219 posts
I'm bored.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#8 Jul 05 2016 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,708 posts
Seems like someone is Angry.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#9 Jul 05 2016 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,205 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Seems like someone is Angry.


Hardly, this is me being miffed.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#10 Jul 05 2016 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Reign, even
Sigh, I am so sorry oh great spotter of errors. May I leave this for your persusal and elucidation?

That's about emails. This is a forum.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jul 05 2016 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,205 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Reign, even
Sigh, I am so sorry oh great spotter of errors. May I leave this for your persusal and elucidation?

That's about emails. This is a forum.


Not that much of a leap; not even skip, really.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#12 Jul 05 2016 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,121 posts
"Any reasonable person should have know that an unclassified system was no place for classified conversation"

"The security standards were not even up to the standards of private commercial email systems such as Gmail"
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#13 Jul 05 2016 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
"Any reasonable person should have know that an unclassified system was no place for classified conversation"

"The security standards were not even up to the standards of private commercial email systems such as Gmail"

Your reactions to Clinton's errors in her email will demonstrate your personality!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Jul 05 2016 at 10:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,121 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
"Any reasonable person should have know that an unclassified system was no place for classified conversation"

"The security standards were not even up to the standards of private commercial email systems such as Gmail"

Your reactions to Clinton's errors in her email will demonstrate your personality!


Is this a fortune cookie?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#15 Jul 05 2016 at 10:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
...in bed
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Jul 06 2016 at 7:38 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,053 posts
angrymnk wrote:
And the political class is surprised that regular people are actually considering people like Trump for the top office?
Trump's demographic is people who hate old people not knowing how email works?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#17 Jul 06 2016 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,307 posts
Jophiel wrote:
HRC! HRC! HRC! HRC!
I make that same sound the day after eating an entire block of cheese.
#18 Jul 06 2016 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,121 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
And the political class is surprised that regular people are actually considering people like Trump for the top office?
Trump's demographic is people who hate old people not knowing how email works?


A large chunk of it, yes.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#19 Jul 06 2016 at 10:16 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,053 posts
I'm certain that the majority of Trump's demographic is the one that has been fed toxic levels of fear and nationalism for the last twenty years. It doesn't just happen, that's the kind of thing you have to cultivate.

And realistically "people who hate old people with email" is pretty much every 25~30 year old in the world who still has parents. My mom still can't figure out the difference between Reply and Forward.

Edited, Jul 6th 2016 12:19pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#20 Jul 06 2016 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,855 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
My mom still can't figure out the difference between Reply and Forward.

There isn't one, at least functionally. There also is no reason for carbon copy either, but it's still there as a vestigial relic of the past.

And rarely needed, but functionally different features like controlling individually which recipient sees which other recipients is not an option. Because why do all the things that you need to and only the needs you need to, when you could do most of the things you need to and then some other things you don't?

This is the pet peeve thread right?
#21 Jul 06 2016 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,331 posts
So I'm hearing now Hilary is appealing to Bernie fans by mimicking his tuition free college thing*. Emphasis on the *.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#22 Jul 06 2016 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
There also is no reason for carbon copy either, but it's still there as a vestigial relic of the past.

Smiley: confused

You never need to send the same message to multiple people? I guess I rarely do from home but it's used all the time in work contexts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jul 06 2016 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,313 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Allegory wrote:
There also is no reason for carbon copy either, but it's still there as a vestigial relic of the past.

Smiley: confused

You never need to send the same message to multiple people? I guess I rarely do from home but it's used all the time in work contexts.
Yea, I constantly use it at work as well.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#24 Jul 06 2016 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,205 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
And the political class is surprised that regular people are actually considering people like Trump for the top office?
Trump's demographic is people who hate old people not knowing how email works?


I can't tell whether you are being deliberately obtuse or not. I guess it does not really matter, does it?

I will state something relatively obvious. For all the things she may be clueless about, email does not appear to be one of them if that little quip about wiping server it with a cloth is any indication. Granted, my mom would not even know what a server is, but then my mom is an SOS.

In short, I highly doubt Trump's demographic is people who hate old people do not know how email works, but there are people who are willing to take a gamble on DT after yesterday. I will admit it does not include me. Still, the sentiment is there and it is getting harder to ignore..
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#25 Jul 06 2016 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
My mom still can't figure out the difference between Reply and Forward.

There isn't one, at least functionally.


Er? One replies to the sender (which may or may not include all other recipients), while the other sends it to a different person entirely. They are completely different. I suppose you could hit "forward", and then cut and paste in the list of original recipients, but that would be kinda silly. Forwarding is also useful when dealing with meeting invites, since you usually want to forward it to just the person you want to add to the meeting, but don't necessarily want to spam an entire list of people who already got the first invite.

Quote:
There also is no reason for carbon copy either, but it's still there as a vestigial relic of the past.


Yes and no. Old style email had just one "to" recipient, with everyone else being cc. Today, you can put a list of names on the to line and it works just fine. However, that's not to say that there isn't a reason to use the two different lines. If you deal with large amounts of email (like, say, several thousand a day), having a means to filter email based on whether something was sent to you directly, or you were merely cc'd on the email is kinda useful. Of course, this requires that the sender actually take a few seconds to actually separate out recipients based on this criteria, which is becoming increasingly rare. But for enterprise environments where you may be dealing with dozens of automated notification systems, separating out primary recipients from secondary folks who might want to know, but don't need to know (and can filter into an appropriate location), is very useful.

And of course, bcc is massively useful. Imagine this scenario. You need to send an email to 10,000 people to notify them of some important thing that's going on. If you just cc them all (or worse, put them all on the to line), guess what happens when say 1% of those people click "reply to all" to ask some question about the notification? Yup. 10,000 people each receive 100 emails (which is, for those keeping count, 1 million emails). Then, at least 1% of those people will angrily respond (also to all), to "stop spamming everyone with these emails", which, of course, just adds to the problem. In years past, we've literally seen email servers grind to an ugly halt from this. Of course, modern email servers use links to database segments to handle multiple identical emails, so it doesn't kill the servers anymore, but the recipients still get massive spam. Which is funny to a point. Then it becomes really not funny at all.

Yeah yeah, you can handle this with server based email flags (or email lists that tons of people are on, but only a select few can actually send to), so it's not a big deal these days, but these still assume a single server pool handling things. Which works for a single enterprise, but not so much for say large customer lists to individuals spread all over the place. So still useful.

Quote:
This is the pet peeve thread right?


Sure! Wait.. is it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Jul 06 2016 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,708 posts
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
My mom still can't figure out the difference between Reply and Forward.

There isn't one, at least functionally.


Er? One replies to the sender (which may or may not include all other recipients), while the other sends it to a different person entirely. They are completely different. I suppose you could hit "forward", and then cut and paste in the list of original recipients, but that would be kinda silly. Forwarding is also useful when dealing with meeting invites, since you usually want to forward it to just the person you want to add to the meeting, but don't necessarily want to spam an entire list of people who already got the first invite.


Only real difference is what it automatically inserts as the recipients, whether or not it automatically attaches any included attachments, and _maybe_ some body formatting options based on your chosen email client. Oh, and that RE: vs FW: automatically inserted. Your last comment there is actually a Reply/Forward vs Reply All distinction. Not necessarily a Reply vs Forward distinction.

Now, if you wanted to make a distinction on the whole "CC vs. BCC" options you'd see some pretty functional differences. But Forward and Reply are really the same thing, just a few automated formatting options. I chose to FW things which I am Replying to, and vice versa, specifically because of these default formatting options. I even Reply to mail in my own Sent folder.

I normally heavily edit the To/CC fields on all Forward / Replies anyway. Since I normally get email requests from people who want me to change things, I'll reply to them with my answer, and copy either my supervisor or their supervisors (or both) so later the person doesn't sit in a meeting and say I never respond to their requests.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#27 Jul 06 2016 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
angrymnk wrote:
In short, I highly doubt Trump's demographic is people who hate old people do not know how email works, but there are people who are willing to take a gamble on DT after yesterday. I will admit it does not include me. Still, the sentiment is there and it is getting harder to ignore..


Funny quip aside, I don't think it has anything at all with whether someone knows how email works. The demographic in question hates people who think they are above the law. Clinton's use of a private email server wasn't because she didn't know how email works, but because she wanted to skirt the reporting and archiving requirements for her job, so as to control the record of her actions while serving as Secretary of State. Period. The Clintons have a long history of concealing and/or outright stealing documents that they believe might be harmful to them.

Anyone remember Sandy Berger, a long time Clinton ally, literally stealing documents related to the Clinton's handling of terrorist attacks in the late 90s from the national archives, by stuffing them in his pants? The idea that people around the Clinton's aren't perfectly wiling to throw themselves on the fire in order to make the Clinton's look good or to cover up their actions is ridiculous. What's unclear is how much of this is because of people genuinely believing in the Clinton's being so important to our nation that they must be protected from any negative perception, and how much is because the Clinton's have something on them and use that leverage to get others to do their dirty work for them.

In either case, the Clinton's are dirty. Very very dirty. Look up the definition of "corrupt politicians", and you'll see Bill's face there, with Hillary standing right next to him. What's amazing is how many people are willing to just look the other way, I can only assume because it's more important to them that their "side" wins than that the people leading their "side" are actually worthy to hold power in the first place.

Hah. But then again... Trump. Sigh. Is it too early for the heavy drinking?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Jul 06 2016 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,708 posts
We've got one guy at work who is hardcore into Trump. Almost so stereotypically that you'd think it was an act if you didn't actually know him from before this all happened. And surprisingly he was not ranting and raving about it today.

I assume he is saving it all for his monthly "Truth" newsletter that he prints up and leaves copies of in the breakrooms. The Chemtrails and HAARP weather control sections will have to take a back seat in this months letter, I'm guessing.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#29 Jul 06 2016 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,855 posts
Regarding carbon copy, I regularly send emails to multiple people, but when I do I just send it to multiple people rather than arbitrarily creating a distinction the people I'm sending it too.

Regarding forwarding and reply, it's a meaningless distinction. Having shortcut keys which automatic fill certain recipient types is fine as a client side feature, but the append of "fwd" is just meaningless garbage.
#30 Jul 06 2016 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Only real difference is what it automatically inserts as the recipients, whether or not it automatically attaches any included attachments, and _maybe_ some body formatting options based on your chosen email client. Oh, and that RE: vs FW: automatically inserted. Your last comment there is actually a Reply/Forward vs Reply All distinction. Not necessarily a Reply vs Forward distinction.


Yeah. I didn't feel like getting into that level of detail. But yeah, whether attachments are included and how the body is formatted are different (for most email client) based on whether you use forward or reply.

Quote:
Now, if you wanted to make a distinction on the whole "CC vs. BCC" options you'd see some pretty functional differences. But Forward and Reply are really the same thing, just a few automated formatting options. I chose to FW things which I am Replying to, and vice versa, specifically because of these default formatting options. I even Reply to mail in my own Sent folder.


And to be honest, those differences annoy me (this is a pet peeve thread!). I'd prefer they not change those things (but yeah, most clients do). From a useability standpoint though, the primary difference is that when you reply it automatically puts the sender on the recipient line (cause you're replying to that person). If you forward, you have a blank to line, which you fill in with whomever you want. I think for most people, that's the biggest difference. Oh, and the whole RE: vs FW: bit as well.

Quote:
I normally heavily edit the To/CC fields on all Forward / Replies anyway. Since I normally get email requests from people who want me to change things, I'll reply to them with my answer, and copy either my supervisor or their supervisors (or both) so later the person doesn't sit in a meeting and say I never respond to their requests.


That's pretty normal. What's a bit abnormal is using forward, then filling in the to line with the sender, then adding additional people to the cc line. If for no other reason than it confuses people, and in some email clients (like say thunderbird, which has an excellent tree UI), changes the way the email thread is laid out, making it harder to follow subthreads of the conversation. Outlook does the same thing (but in a much crappier way). Using forward "breaks" the email chain. Sometimes in amazingly hard to follow ways. So only use that if you want to create a wholly unrelated side conversation (like, "hey boss man, here's an email I got, and I'm curious what you think about this issue we're dealing with, but don't necessarily want our little side conversation to be visible to the list of people on the original thread").

As a general rule, if I'm including the person who originally sent the email to me in my response, I use reply. If I'm sending the email to someone completely different, and not included in the original email, I'll use forward. That doesn't preclude adding or deleting recipients as needed, but does make it a lot easier to follow the flow of a conversation.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jul 06 2016 at 6:21 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,205 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
"Any reasonable person should have know that an unclassified system was no place for classified conversation"

"The security standards were not even up to the standards of private commercial email systems such as Gmail"

Your reactions to Clinton's errors in her email will demonstrate your personality!


It does not? I hear you what you are saying. You are saying that Comey sent his own Fight Club message along the lines of 'we guard you while you sleep'? That is totally what you are saying isn't it?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#32 Jul 06 2016 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The distinction usually isn't arbitrary for me. I'm sending it to one primary recipient and the cc'd people are getting a copy for their records, in case the primary recipient can't respond, just to be kept in the loop, etc.

BCC is super useful since I can email a request for proposal to myself, bcc some subcontractors and it's not obvious who everyone is bidding against.

Edited, Jul 6th 2016 7:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Jul 06 2016 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,205 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
In short, I highly doubt Trump's demographic is people who hate old people do not know how email works, but there are people who are willing to take a gamble on DT after yesterday. I will admit it does not include me. Still, the sentiment is there and it is getting harder to ignore..


Funny quip aside, I don't think it has anything at all with whether someone knows how email works. The demographic in question hates people who think they are above the law. Clinton's use of a private email server wasn't because she didn't know how email works, but because she wanted to skirt the reporting and archiving requirements for her job, so as to control the record of her actions while serving as Secretary of State. Period. The Clintons have a long history of concealing and/or outright stealing documents that they believe might be harmful to them.

Anyone remember Sandy Berger, a long time Clinton ally, literally stealing documents related to the Clinton's handling of terrorist attacks in the late 90s from the national archives, by stuffing them in his pants? The idea that people around the Clinton's aren't perfectly wiling to throw themselves on the fire in order to make the Clinton's look good or to cover up their actions is ridiculous. What's unclear is how much of this is because of people genuinely believing in the Clinton's being so important to our nation that they must be protected from any negative perception, and how much is because the Clinton's have something on them and use that leverage to get others to do their dirty work for them.

In either case, the Clinton's are dirty. Very very dirty. Look up the definition of "corrupt politicians", and you'll see Bill's face there, with Hillary standing right next to him. What's amazing is how many people are willing to just look the other way, I can only assume because it's more important to them that their "side" wins than that the people leading their "side" are actually worthy to hold power in the first place.

Hah. But then again... Trump. Sigh. Is it too early for the heavy drinking?


I know, you know, pope knows.. even gaxe and joph do. I guess they are just bored.

Edited, Jul 6th 2016 8:24pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#34 Jul 06 2016 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What's amazing is how many people are willing to just look the other way, I can only assume because it's more important to them that their "side" wins than that the people leading their "side" are actually worthy to hold power in the first place.

Hah. But then again... Trump. Sigh. Is it too early for the heavy drinking?

Heh, seriously. You have the GOP leadership having to condemn every third thing Trump says but then they still endorse him. Or Walker's bizarre endorsement today where he refused to say Trump's name.

Probably want to hold off on being smug about people who care less about the quality of their candidates than "winning".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Jul 06 2016 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,855 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The distinction usually isn't arbitrary for me. I'm sending it to one primary recipient and the cc'd people are getting a copy for their records, in case the primary recipient can't respond, just to be kept in the loop, etc.

Which is fine as an optional client feature since it is cosmetic, but not needed as an inherent part of email.

Some people like to put a line through their seven to differentiate it from a 1. If people want to design fonts and applications that display a 7 as such, that's fine. What's pointless is building a keyboard with a numpad that has two sevens, one with and one without the slash.
Jophiel wrote:
BCC is super useful since I can email a request for proposal to myself, bcc some subcontractors and it's not obvious who everyone is bidding against.

BCC is a meaningful difference as it affects what people can and cannot do, except it's done wrong since you can't set individual view preferences per recipient. For example, I might send a generic flyer to several clients and BCC them so that they cannot see our entire clientele list, but I will also send/cc coworkers who should be able to see all recipients but cannot.
#36 Jul 06 2016 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Very little is needed as an inherent part of email. That's why things come with "features".

Edited, Jul 6th 2016 8:06pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Jul 06 2016 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,653 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What's amazing is how many people are willing to just look the other way, I can only assume because it's more important to them that their "side" wins than that the people leading their "side" are actually worthy to hold power in the first place.

Hah. But then again... Trump. Sigh. Is it too early for the heavy drinking?

Heh, seriously.


Smiley: chug

Quote:
You have the GOP leadership having to condemn every third thing Trump says but then they still endorse him. Or Walker's bizarre endorsement today where he refused to say Trump's name.

Probably want to hold off on being smug about people who care less about the quality of their candidates than "winning".


I think the Dems are just much better at lying about it for the sake of party unity. Let's face it, the Obama/Clinton lovefest yesterday was almost painful to watch. Talk about trying way too hard. I particularly loved when Obama called Clinton the Energizer Bunny (I'm sure that no feminist groups will have issue with the word "bunny" used in this context though, so it's all ok), and when Clinton said that Obama's greatest accomplishment was more or less successfully breeding (yeah, I get what she was saying, but boy could you interpret it another way if you wanted). There were seriously points where I thought they were both basically going right to the edge of backhanded insults, followed with a laugh, and "look, we're just kidding, we're all one happy family now!" shift.

To be fair though, the gap between Trump and the GOP is much wider than between Obama and Clinton. So there''s that as well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Jul 06 2016 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,313 posts
Allegory wrote:
Regarding carbon copy, I regularly send emails to multiple people, but when I do I just send it to multiple people rather .
I regularly need to send emails to multiple people but the task assigned within is meant for one person, but the others need to be aware of it. By sending it to one and CCing the others, that allows me to clarify who is responsible while keeping the others in the loop.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#39 Jul 06 2016 at 11:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think the Dems are just much better at lying about it for the sake of party unity.

I guess that's one way of trying to put a positive spin on "The GOP is utterly dismayed at their candidate but will support him anyway purely for the sake of winning". The keynote speaker for the GOP's convention literally endorsed Trump by saying "I said I’d support the GOP nominee. It’s now clear who the RNC delegates will vote to nominate. And he is better than she is."

"Well, I said I'd do this so now I guess I have to do it. Yay Republicans..."
Quote:
Talk about trying way too hard. I particularly loved when Obama called Clinton the Energizer Bunny (I'm sure that no feminist groups will have issue with the word "bunny" used in this context though, so it's all ok), and when Clinton said that Obama's greatest accomplishment was more or less successfully breeding (yeah, I get what she was saying, but boy could you interpret it another way if you wanted).

You're sounding desperate.

Edited, Jul 7th 2016 12:02am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Jul 06 2016 at 11:45 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,855 posts
I understand that you are using the feature. what I'm arguing is that what you're doing has been implemented on the wrong level.

It would be as if a keyboard has two sets of alphanumeric keys, one that types regular and one that types bold. It's not that I don't people shouldn't use bold or shouldn't have access to it, but building it into the hardware of the keyboard is a poor design choice. It's best implemented at a higher level, like in word processing software.

Email is similar, in that CC isn't a feature that should be a fundamental aspect of email, it should be a interface addon, like outlook's option to mark emails as high or low importance. By making it a core part of the system you are:

1) Limiting the way people can use it. In your example there are two groups of people, recipients and CC. If you for any reason wanted to declare a third group (say one person is given the primary task, others just need to be in the loop but not actively doing it, and a third is for auditing records who don't even need to read it but do need to have it for archives), you cannot do so. It is made impossible at a fundamental level.

2) Creating confusing arbitrary systems as people try to apply distinctions to indistinct differentiators. The recipient and CC fields are functionally identical. What you are doing is a cosmetic difference. If you decided to flip the CC and recipient fields so that the CC person is responsible and the recipients need to be in the loop, it would work exactly the same because all that is changing is how people interpret the information and not how the system handles the information. This leads to different organizations using the same system in different and contradictory ways. what cc means to you are your company is not what cc means to someone else at a different company. I admit it's a minor issue, but it's easily avoidable by fixing email.

3) Forcing users to make use of a system they don't want or need. Another minor problem, but still representative of bad design.

The physical world equivalent of carbon copy potentially has a functional difference. If I hold an original mortgage note I have certain legal rights that a person holding a carbon copy of the mortgage note does not. If it's just a physical letter with information (say a quarterly report), then the original and a copy do the exact same thing and there is no difference and no need to designate one as a copy or not. A carbon copy of an email is functionally identical to the *original* email because it's purely informational.

Edited, Jul 7th 2016 12:48am by Allegory
#41 Jul 07 2016 at 6:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
I understand that you are using the feature. what I'm arguing is that what you're doing has been implemented on the wrong level.

Ok, dude. You care WAY more about e-mail than me so you can win this one.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Jul 07 2016 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
******
49,053 posts
Allegory wrote:
There isn't one, at least functionally.
My mother constantly sends two word emails that say "read this" when she means to forward messages from other family members, so functionally one keeps an Italian woman from screaming into a phone about how I don't care enough about the family to keep in touch and don't appear at family gatherings that afternoon.
angrymnk wrote:
I will admit it does not include me.
Kind of my point. At this point of the election no one really cares about a noncrime except people who are actively looking for rationalizations for who they're voting for. It's not "X is bad so I'm voting for Y," so much as "I'm voting for Y anyway and this will make me feel better about it." The "political class" aren't surprised by this, they bank on it.
gbaji wrote:
The demographic in question hates people who think they are above the law.
If that were the case then they wouldn't be "Trump supporters" either.
gbaji wrote:
I think the Dems are just much better at lying about it for the sake of party unity.
"Being better politicians" isn't nearly as damning an accusation as you seem to believe it to be.
Jophiel wrote:
You're sounding desperate.
I imagine it's his conscience battling his party allegiance.

Edited, Jul 7th 2016 9:52am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Jul 07 2016 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,307 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kind of my point. At this point of the election no one really cares about a noncrime except people who are actively looking for rationalizations for who they're voting for.
You're forgetting ****** off Bernie Bros who are hoping this will clear the way for him to swoop in and save the election.

I'm also annoyed by it and don't need anything to feel better about voting for Trump, but whatevs.

Edit: Scott Adams makes an interesting point.

Edited, Jul 7th 2016 8:54am by Poldaran
#44 Jul 07 2016 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Adams makes a point but he took a lot of weird turns to get there. His ideas about the Supreme Court are... questionable and Comey did not say that Clinton was "100% guilty" since that would require a court to decide.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Jul 07 2016 at 9:06 AM Rating: Decent
******
49,053 posts
I'd argue that if you're not annoyed by politicians then you aren't paying attention, but I have my doubts that being annoyed is enough to cause anyone to switch from one candidate to another.

Especially this cycle.
Scott Adams wrote:
Credibility has to be job one.
Did he stop paying attention after Nixon?

Edited, Jul 7th 2016 11:10am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Jul 07 2016 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,855 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Ok, dude. You care WAY more about e-mail than me so you can win this one.

Thanks Gbaji.
#47 Jul 07 2016 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: confused
.
Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Jul 07 2016 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,219 posts
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
My mom still can't figure out the difference between Reply and Forward.

There isn't one, at least functionally.


There is. If you reply, and add a recipient, there won't be any attachments from the previous email. If you forward to someone, attachments will be included. Usually forward to someone who wasn't on the original email. This is a thing that my boss, who is older, can't wrap his head around, so I get added to a lot of replies, with things like "can you fill out the attached document from so-and-so" and I have to reply asking him to forward the document to me.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#49 Jul 07 2016 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,205 posts
Quote:
Kind of my point. At this point of the election no one really cares about a noncrime except people who are actively looking for rationalizations for who they're voting for. It's not "X is bad so I'm voting for Y," so much as "I'm voting for Y anyway and this will make me feel better about it." The "political class" aren't surprised by this, they bank on it.


It is odd though. Anyone else would have been nailed to the wall. Suddenly, that 'noncrime' as you put it, would quickly be accompanied by everything that can thrown into the mix ( maybe even cfaa, who knows ). The only reason she was not is because she has enough clout.. apparently.

Also, I think you misunderstood my response. I am sure as **** not doing the lesser evil thing. If I was sociable enough and/or had a platform, I would be calling for an outright rejection of both mainstream candidates. I am not even sure why this cannot happen. Internet should make it easy. And yet it seems impossible to a vast majority of Americans.

Now that is some amazing level of indoctrination.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#50 Jul 07 2016 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Probably because the hippie whose political experience is a term on her HOA board doesn't inspire much interest.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Jul 07 2016 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Probably because the hippie whose political experience is a term on her HOA board doesn't inspire much interest.


Don't knock their ideals, man.

____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Kavekkk, Yodabunny, Anonymous Guests (47)