2
   

Which is more rude, constantly disseminating net-nonsense, or challenging it?

 
 
dlowan
 
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 08:30 pm
I don't mean in an online community like this...(where you expect your gonads to be made int0 a hood over your head if you try it)...I mean in the real world, where people one works with (or, to be precise, three of them) really think that sending on the endless email about the little munchkins with cancer will raise money for said munchkins, or that sending on the unbearably cutesy-wutesy, or goddess help us, angelic, crap to ten new people will bring a miracle and don't break the chain and send one back to me otherwise I will think you don't care.

Now...work-places are delicate things, and generally, I ignore and delete (which I guess makes a couple of people think I don't care about them, when I kind of do, but there are limits.)

Occasionally, (maybe 5 times in 3 years) though, especially with the "munchkins with cancer" or the "10,000 women in your suburb have been raped by a man with a baby pram" I hit Reply-all and include the Snopes information about the falsity of the story. There is inevitably a list waaaay longer than just our workplace that is part of the chain...so I kind of feel that challenging the odd bit of net insanity is a Force For Good, as it were...but...

I think this is likely hurtful to the senders...though I know the rest of us like it.

What do you think?

Am I being petty to make such a point, or is it of sufficient social use to justify it, despite the possible offence to the well-meaning folk?





  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 3,230 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by dlowan
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 08:32 pm
@dlowan,
I agree totally.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 08:32 pm
@edgarblythe,
With which point of view, goddammit!
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 08:35 pm
@dlowan,
When I receive nonsense from well meaning people in chain emails I:

1) Reply only to them (reply all is mean)
2) I usually just send them a link to correct information (e.g. a snopes link) with no commentary.

Most of the time, I get another chain email shortly afterward correcting the info, and I've never had anyone get mad or hurt about it.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 08:38 pm
@edgarblythe,
Sorry. I mostly just delete the emails, regardless of who sends them. I was a bit squeamish in the beginning. Now, I don't give a damn.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 08:45 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

When I receive nonsense from well meaning people in chain emails I:

1) Reply only to them (reply all is mean)
2) I usually just send them a link to correct information (e.g. a snopes link) with no commentary.

Most of the time, I get another chain email shortly afterward correcting the info, and I've never had anyone get mad or hurt about it.



Cool....that is a MUCH better idea. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:01 pm
@dlowan,
Create your own chain letter/

Say
" send this to ten people if you want to never ever see another back luck chain again" If you dont send this in the next five minutes, someone is going to hit you in the back of the head with a spit ball created by a Chinese Crouching Tiger monk and it will curse you , your family and your coworkers for the magickal time of 6 years, 5 months, 4 days, 3 hours, 2 seconds and 1 more year.

ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:13 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I use Robert's protocol.

It seems to be very effective in a couple of ways, not least of which is no more chain emails from whoever provoked the bunny.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 02:48 am
@shewolfnm,
shewolfnm wrote:

Create your own chain letter/

Say
" send this to ten people if you want to never ever see another back luck chain again" If you dont send this in the next five minutes, someone is going to hit you in the back of the head with a spit ball created by a Chinese Crouching Tiger monk and it will curse you , your family and your coworkers for the magickal time of 6 years, 5 months, 4 days, 3 hours, 2 seconds and 1 more year.





Nah...cool idea, but I think it would...er....REALLY hurt the people concerned.


ehBeth wrote:

I use Robert's protocol.

It seems to be very effective in a couple of ways, not least of which is no more chain emails from whoever provoked the bunny.



I plan to use Robert's protocol from now on.

I have no hope at all that it will cause the disseminators to send out a corrective email (I suspect ALL of Robert's correspondents are more net savvy than this tiny group of colleagues), and I know it will not stop the silly emails, but it will cure the irritation caused to me by inaction about such gullibility, while being way more respectful and sensitive towards people who are, in other ways, wonderful people.

Damn. In a way that is daft, because the chain of people who believe these things will not be affected by my actions (because, as I said, there is no way these folk will think to send out corrective emails)......and I will likely still hurt the feelings of the disseminators...but it IS mean correcting things all the way along the chain.

Sigh.

I can from now on:

a. Do nothing at all.

b. Try the Robert protocol and see if any good comes of it.

c. Do what I was doing.


I will try b., and assess. If it has no effect, I'll likely shut up and move to a.

I don't want to be mean.

I do think the emails that scare the living bejesus out of people (the crime wave ones, for example) are really bad, though.

Sigh.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 03:04 am
@dlowan,
You know, this lot of co-workers is challenging in some ways.

I have mentioned before that we have a psychologist who believes in


a. Angels that come and guide her

b. Conspiracy theories about Port Arthur.


The angels I shut up about, the conspiracy theories I could not suppress myself about.


I sorta kinda hafta (I could say flat no, but I'd feel mean) go to a series of psychotherapy sessions that are supposed to be meeting some peer supervision requirements, and some staff support functions, and be teaching us about "expressive therapies".

Now, we all moan about not having enough reflective time, and de-briefing time, and staff development.

These moans seem to me quite reasonable.

So... the Powers That Be came up with paying a part-timer, who is well-versed in Expressive Therapies, to run a few, but regular, sessions re what I said above.

Now....some analytic theories I have a major new respect for via Attachment research.

If I have to do play therapy, I will, but only if I have to, and then only under certain conditions........but, on Thursday, I was forced to sit quietly and politely while Souls and Past Lives and ANGELS got talked about.


I have no problem with people believing in, and talking about, such things....but in MY WORK TIME????



Cool, in debate ( but I can't debate, I have to shut up)....and I really have better ways of spending any development time I have.


But.....as I said, work-places are delicate.

Well, I will take what I can......

CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 09:11 am
@dlowan,
My sympathies, dlowan.
We once had an avid born-again-Christian co-worker who was quite challenging
to the rest of us, as she tried to lecture us on "God's word". These fanatics are
tireless in their efforts to find new victims. So I can sympathize how difficult it can be with co-workers of that category.

As for these dreaded chain letters, I just delete them without follow-up. I rarely
get them now, actually, which is nice.

My daughter, who gets tons of these chain letters from her girlfriends, is far less diplomatic. She will write back asking them to stop cluttering her mailbox with that annoying nonsense. She's still getting them though....
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 10:28 am
@CalamityJane,
I've used Robert's method and I've also just flat-out confronted the person (nicely) and said something like, "I'd love to hear how YOU are doing. I've been online for years and have seen probably everythin you would ever think of sending me that's a chain letter, prayer or other good luck omen. Thanks but I have found that I make my own luck. And I'm lucky to have a friend (or family member) like you! So, tell me how things are going on in your neck of the woods."

Sometimes it works, it doesn't always (there's a friend of ours from our wedding who constantly sends us jokes which we saw maybe four or five years ago, argh), but it's another thing to do.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 02:01 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

My sympathies, dlowan.
We once had an avid born-again-Christian co-worker who was quite challenging
to the rest of us, as she tried to lecture us on "God's word". These fanatics are
tireless in their efforts to find new victims. So I can sympathize how difficult it can be with co-workers of that category.

As for these dreaded chain letters, I just delete them without follow-up. I rarely
get them now, actually, which is nice.

My daughter, who gets tons of these chain letters from her girlfriends, is far less diplomatic. She will write back asking them to stop cluttering her mailbox with that annoying nonsense. She's still getting them though....


No born-agains or fanatics at work.....(had a Seventh Day Adventist at my previous job, who was extremely objectionable, but not because he proselytised), and none of the folk where I am now proselytise....I just have to be very careful not to laugh at stuff like angels fluttering about and all.

I was just kind of stunned that this stuff came up at a staff development thing, and it was more chatter than pushing anything.

Actually, one of the dreaded chain-email people has now left.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 02:07 pm
@dlowan,
I see the idiotic chain e-mails as well intended. Those who forward them to me usually are not adept at using sites like Snopes etc. and sometimes they'll include a note that they would rather be safe than sorry.

I don't see any value in 'replying to all' though and embarassing the sender. I usually send a brief note thanking the sender for their concern but unfortunately it is an urban legend and attach the Snopes or whatever information. I leave it up to them to inform the others on the mailing list of the error, and more than a few actually do that.

You usually don't have to do that more than a couple of times before they start checking it out themselves.

A lot of these bogus e-mails also now include bogus Snopes information too, and that is fooling some folks and a few are still getting through now and then.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 02:12 pm
@jespah,
Lol...indeed.

Actually, it's funny, because the stuff one of these people sends is a Work Issue That Never Gets Talked About Except in the Odd Huddle.

She is a person who just loves to send along stuff to brighten your day.

Some of it some people found a bit questionable, taste-wise, and there was a big buzz about it at one stage. I just thought the intent was the most important thing, and I just deleted anything I found a bit icky (I don't mean angels and frou-frou icky, I mean stuff that some folk found kind of inappropriate given our line of work).

I think a couple of people were thinking of going to management about it, and I remember encouraging them just to talk to her. I think that happened, because she sent around an email asking if anyone wanted to be taken off her email list.

I wussed out on that, because I could tell in the email how hurt she was, and she is truly a good, good person.

0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 03:26 pm
I use Robert's method (Wait a minute, I think I came up with that method a donkey's age ago!!) when I really think the sender is, ahem, tender. I don't like to embarrass anyone. BUT, excuse me, or excuuuuuuuusssseeee me, we are at least ten years into the Internet experience and anyone who is still mesmerized by "send this on to bring Peace to the World" emails, or better, Microsoft wants to know if their blah-blah is better than BLAH-blah and they are willing to send you a check for forwarding ,.,,,,, blah -Gog-mag-god almighty- blah----blah blah blah ought to know better by now. THEM I do the full Monty reply to all, Snopes link, this is bullshit email. Sometimes it slows them down a little.

I have a friend whom I have known since the war who loves to send me those Care-bears, you have a friend, send this back to let me know you love me emails. I have in the past three years described in full how to BCC me on any such and -lo and behold-- he does that now. I still don't click reply, I email him and tell him he is still the toughest son of a bitch on the planet and that if I was a woman I would sell myself into slavery to be with him.

He replies that he will pray for me.

Good.

Meanwhile, watch out for whatever they are watching out for now.

====
One thing;
One should NEVER receive AT WORK any email not related to WORK. Any such should be reported to whoever is superior to the the sender. If there is no one superior to the sender....

Joe(tough ****. Resign.)Nation
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 03:57 pm
@Joe Nation,
I KNOW I should have thought of the Robert/Joe method years ago.

I suppose I have just not faced such a softie before.

Begone with yer just work emails stuff. There's no harm in a little bit of sharing of genuinely nice stuff.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 07:27 pm
@dlowan,
I Used the Robert method last night!

Not at work....with a person spreading an email claiming the UK were banning teaching about the holocaust to pander to Muslim extremists.

No word from the sender, though...and certainly no correction.

Ah well.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 08:07 pm
@dlowan,
I vascillate. 'Tis my way.

I do look things up on Snopes.com if it's that kind of email, and do send it only to the sender.

I ask people who know a moderate amount about computers/internet, or at least have used them for years, to bcc me and have sometimes nicely told those who don't know how, how to do it.

I've failed in composure and insisted to someone who should know better to please stop including my email in a group list, to bcc, and included an a2k thread link on the subject - she reacted negatively and I haven't heard from her again at all over several years. Gee, I wasn't that mean..

Most of the emails people send me of interesting items are.. actually interesting to me - they're from people I know well.

But..
I've been increasingly friendly with one of my cousins. We disagree about dozens of subjects, but love each other, and we're not spring chickens.
I blew up at her about a year ago when she sent a joke about people on welfare. We hashed that out, and she's been sort of carefully stepping with what she sends since then. Meantime, with the cute stuff, I either just delete, or if there is one that amuses me a little, I'll tell her so. Have recently sent a few video links myself.

So, yesterday she sent me a chain type thing re doing recipe swaps. If I join this swap thing, I may get something like 32 recipes back. (Just what I need... do you f/g know how many recipes I have?) Anyway, I hemmed and hawed about responding about chain letters, and ended up just deleting it. She means well, and it doesn't really matter in the long run.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 08:19 pm
@ossobuco,
Yeah.....I only pick on people for the things I think DO matter....even if only in what amounts to a small way...or rather even if I can only do anything about it in a small way, given the magnitude of the spread of the lie.

I think email chain lies about things that are, for instance, likely to inflame emotions about stuff like Muslims, non-existent crime sprees and dangers, and such matter.

Most stuff I either enjoy or quietly delete.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Which is more rude, constantly disseminating net-nonsense, or challenging it?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 08:20:44