ANYone who uses this 'tactic' is crossing the line...

[Karen Blundell]

Originally Posted by Razer Rage

But you have revealed one thing to me; you are very immature. Good day.

@Amy: WikiAnswers - Is 'persons' the correct plural form of the word 'person'

and you're a pompous a**
good day to you too!

[Jason Dolman]

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

PS. I think if you polled respondents by age you would see that the younger crowd sees re: as reply while the older, before email crowd sees re: as regarding.

You might be onto something there. I'm 32 and would probably fall into the middle of the younger-older segment you suggest, so maybe I can be the debate settler

My 2 cents - I see re: as regarding and don't get the big deal even if it was as reply.


Jason

[ExRat]

Hi Razer Rage,

Ok, have it your way, kid gloves off.

You said to Amy -

you are very immature

...and you are way too emotional when proven wrong - a classic symptom of immaturity, therefore also a case of pot & kettle.

Wiki answers - lol. That proves it then, right?

You assume far too much, Rat. For your information, I was referring to the type of scanner that scans papers.

I love the way people shorten my name to Rat. It's a sign that I'm right, they are wrong, and they can't deal with it.

Um. I too, was relating to paper scanners when I referenced 'your' scanner. Re-read the post without blinding yourself with Rage and you might learn something (IE you are incorrect).

And for another thing, in the adult thread. Please. It's common knowledge what porn does to a person

As I said - seeing opinion as absolute fact. The most common example of sloppy thinking on this forum and a particularly unusual thing for a good marketer to do.

How could you possibly help someone by exposing them to pornography?

a) if they are mentally ill and a sexual predator, but the pornography removes their urges to harm

b) if they are disabled to such an extent that they need a solution, but the only other alternative is to use a real human (a prostitute) rather than a real human who poses for photographs (a model)

c) there are many more, but the two are enough to refute your points thoroughly. If you take these extreme examples, water them down a bit into less extreme, everyday situations, you will get the other answers I could have given, and the reason why porn is undeniably, universally more popular than it is not.

Porn can cause problems too. Many things in life have not-so-wholesome uses and twists away from their common, positive uses. Take poppys (IE morphine) - they provide uncalculable relief for those who are dying a painful death, and those close to that person who have seen enough suffering. Yet, poppys can also be used inappropriately to manufacture a similar drug, that can cause suffering and death.

But at least I know when to stop

It's funny how often people make this claim in a variety of circumstances, just after being taught a lesson for not realising that they probably shouldn't have started in the first place.

[AmyBrown]

Originally Posted by Razer Rage

Good for you. I suppose you missed the sarcasm.

I'm sure you found it amusing. I don't see how it was revealing. But you have revealed one thing to me; you are very immature. Good day.

@Amy: WikiAnswers - Is 'persons' the correct plural form of the word 'person'

This is becoming tiresome. As previously noted, I don't have the time or resources at the moment to debate your usage of persons. Cooking and computing generally don't mix. I've stated from the outset that I'm not a wombat. I'll defer to Roger and/or Paul M. as to whether a non-wombat is entitled to womback. I may well be out-of-line there and will surrender my womback card upon request. You sir, may want to invest in a spell checker before continuing on further wombat quests.

[Rod Cortez]

Using "re:" is an outright "scam"? You've got to be kidding me. Whoever said it's all about context is absolutely right. Though I personally don't care for this tactic, it's not going to keep me from opening an e-mail if I'm interested in it. After all, I did opt into the list for a reason. Now the "payment received" subject headings, those really chap my hide!

RoD

[valerieSONORA]

I've always hated the RE in emails. When I got my first ones I was like, huh? I didn't email that person. They annoyed me so much I automatically deleted them thinking they must be spam. Have never opened one, would never bother. I've gotten used to them by now so they don't bother me anymore. But 99% -100% of them now end up in my gmail spam.

[mikemcmillan]

I don't like the use of RE: unless the person is replying to an email I sent them. But here are a couple other similar thingies that stick in my craw.

I have had a number of emails where the sender claims they are providing me with a free gift and they include a link to a "free video". However, when the link is clicked I find that the video is simply promoting an affiliate product with an affiliate link below it. That's not a free gift in my book--very deceptive.

Another one is where, especially during a period of a launch or pre-launch for a product, I get an email from a Goober promoting the product. Then, the next day I get another email with a heading such as, Opps Mike, I goofed!

The con is that the email says that the email they sent out yesterday contained links that many reported were not working. They say they corrected the links (although they did, in fact, work yesterday) and are re-sending the mail as a courtesy. It's not a courtesy, it's just a way to get another email to their list without appearing to be overdoing the email thing. That happens all the time and a lot of Goobers use it.

So how about something positive about email title lines that you can use? Here is a list of some of the news headlines that rotated on the splash screen on AOL today. Check them out and think about how they are worded.

New Research Shows Famed Explorer May Have Been Murdered

Social Security Code Is Cracked
ID Is at Risk if Born in These States

Singer 'Fighting for Life' in Hospital

Sweetener May Prevent Tooth Decay

Pro Tennis Player, 24, Found Dead

Former Ice-Skating Champ Arrested

Restaurant Chain Files Bankruptcy

Five-Time Boxing Champ Back Behind Bars

Notice how each of these teaser lines gives you some info, but each lacks the one thing you want to know about the topic. Notice the one about the Social Security code being cracked. They mention five states but don't tell you what those five states are. It pulls you in and you want to know if you live in one of those states.

That is exactly what a good email subject line should look like. No deception. No con job. Just a tag that makes the reader want to click to learn more. That's good marketing.

Rant completed.

[TimothyW]

Originally Posted by MrSonic

A well-written, compelling headline without tricks will get opened if you target your audience correctly. Professional marketers don't need tricks.

Dave

Amen, Sonic.

[Floyd Fisher]

Originally Posted by -- TW

There is ONLY one purpose in doing it -- to ***DECEIVE*** the recipient (or attempt to).

That is the very definition of crossing the line.

It is a smug-based SCAM.

Thats' all.

-- TW

Obviously you've never had any military experience.

RE: is used in message subject to indicate 'regarding'.

So is the entire military a scam?

[TimothyW]

I understand it means regarding. I never (until this thread) even THOUGHT it could mean 'reply.' But, in emailese, it SIGNIFIES that someone is responding to an email you sent them. Even if the letters were XZ, it would SIGNIFY the same thing. And, if a marketer uses that convention to DECEIVE the recipient into believing the email is a reply to one he/she sent out, then that's a scam, imo.

The fact that it HAPPENS to be "RE," which are also the first two letters in the word "reply," is completely beside the point.

At ease.

-- TW

[Ben_Curtis]

Are we done yet? I didn't know two little letters could spawn 50,000!

[Paul Myers]

The use of Re: at the beginning of a subject line is, assuming the part that follows is the (or a) primary subject of the message, grammatically correct. It is also proper business practice, as has been pointed out several times.

Yes, it's a safe bet that some people use it to get attention. It's just as safe a bet that some folks remember their 6th grade English and high school Business Communications classes and are doing things the way they were taught is correct.

When you can read their minds, you can say whether that one signifies inappropriate intent. Again, assuming the content relates to what follows the Re:.

The suggestion to unsubscribe if something offends you that much was correct. You don't need to explain your personal preferences to anyone. I would add that one should try not to be so easily offended.

In response to Amy's remark: Yes, a womback is usually appropriate.

Re: the discussions of persons vs people... The generally accepted usage is for 'persons' to refer to a fairly limited group of individuals (the persons involved in Saturday's robbery), while 'people' normally refers to a broader and/or less defined group (people who like cheese).

That is not a hard and fast rule, but it will provide useful guidance in choosing which of the two to employ in a given circumstance.

Razer,

Actually, it means "reply" to most people.

RE:ally?

Hey, if they flunked English, that's a problem. Just not MY problem. (I could see that mistake for ESL speakers, mind you.)

The word "scanning" was appropriate in the use you corrected. If you're going to wombat, get it right. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to being corrected for incorrectly correcting someone's correct usage.

If you wish to accuse me of being semi-educated, feel free. I suggest taking a look at Merriam Webster's list of definitions before jumping off that cliff again, though.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scan

Or, if you wish a more authoritative source, please note the first definition in the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/scan

Feel free to wombat the editors of the OED. I'm sure they, too, will feel chagrined to discover their woeful definitional shortcomings.

Think about what you're saying before you challenge someone on such small things in the future, eh? There's a good lad...

'Skim' is also technically correct, by the way, but not as precise in connotation.


Paul (Onslaught),

Re: "What the hell is a wombat?" It all started in 4th grade...

http://www.talkbiz.com/wombats


Paul

[Ken Strong]

Originally Posted by ExRat

I love the way people shorten my name to Rat. It's a sign that I'm right, they are wrong, and they can't deal with it.

Would it be more accurate to call you ExExRat in those cases? Is there a toggle switch on the back of your neck that turns your ratness on and off?

[ExRat]

Hi Ken,

Would it be more accurate to call you ExExRat in those cases? Is there a toggle switch on the back of your neck that turns your ratness on and off?

For once (amazingly) I literally have no comeback for that. Must be bedtime - it's nearly light

Just - lol.

[CmdrStidd]

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi Ken,



For once (amazingly) I literally have no comeback for that. Must be bedtime - it's nearly light

Just - lol.

Mark this date and time on the calendar!!! Exrat is speechless!!!

Sorry there but I could not help myself. It happens to you so infrequently.

[TheDebtEliminator]

When I receive a Re from anyone other that a known friend or company, it gets deleted immediately.

They are trash most of the time

[Thamisgith]

Were I writing a memo or body text for an e-mail then I may use "re:" to mean "regarding" or "with reference to".

However, "Re:" is automatically inserted into the title of e-mails when replying by many of the main e-mail software programs in use. The inappropriate use of it in this manner became quite popular with many gurus (quite) a few years ago and it is a clear attempt to get people to open an e-mail based upon the fact that they may think of it as a response to an e-mail which they themselves originated.

It could be considered as slightly deceptive or manipulative. It's not a scam (my opinion).

Personally, whenever I receive an e-mail with Re: in the title which is not a genuine response to a previous communication, I immediately unsubscribe from whatever list it was sent out to. Not because I think it's a scam or morally wrong - just because it's so old, tired and lame.

On the other hand, if anyone used Re: in their opening paragraph or elsewhere in the body of their text I would just view it in the traditional sense and keep reading.

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by -- TW

I know it means regarding. I still contend it is only typed for the sole purpose of tricking the recipient into thinking it is a reply from a previously sent email.

His target must be dumb people then. I'm guessing you fell for it.

[Martin Luxton]

Well, that was a rollercoaster ride!

First of all, what Razer Rage said here

Using "RE:" or "Oops, messed up the link", or any other misleading title is lame. It shows a lack of skill in marketing and a lack of quality on the part of the marketer.

I wouldn't do this myself but I don't see how it shows a lack of marketing skill. A subject line that converts way better than any other will get used by a lot of people, regardless (should that be re:less?) of whether it is misleading.

It is about business models. Some marketers go the churn and burn route. They get loads of unsubscribes and replace them with fresh cannon fodder every day. To them it's a numbers game and developing a relationship is not on their agenda.

However repugnant that model is, it doesn't mean people using it are lacking in marketing skills.

I'll have to take issue with Paul Myers here

I could see that mistake for ESL speakers, mind you

re: ESL/EFL speakers who have gone through formal courses.

Many foreigners know English grammar better than native speakers.

In the days before I was a teacher a German guy asked me

"Would that be a gerund or the present participle?"

"Ugh, yeah, er . . . the first one . . . ?"

I had no bloody idea because at school my whole grammar education consisted of "a noun is a naming word, a verb is a doing word and an adjective tells us more about the noun".

One of the reasons British people have difficulty learning a foreign language is because they have no idea about grammar. In many other countries, learning the grammar of the language is a top educational priority.

That's not to say you should become anal about grammatical correctness. Grammar fiends find it almost impossible to learn a foreign language well because of analysis paralysis.

Any student who has reached pre-intermediate level will know about 'scan' and 'skim'. It is a fundamental reading skill that is taught in all modern ESL/EFL coursebooks. Generally, students are told to 'read for gist' (skim) and then 'scan' for specific information.

This definition is in all the literature of ETS (based at Harvard University) ETS: Educational Testing Service ? Home and University of Cambridge Cambridge ESOL: Exams

Yes, the meanings or usage of words change over time and they don't always have the meaning we think they have.

In Shakespeare's day, "nice" also meant trivial as in

Why are people getting so het up about something as nice as the meaning of "re:"?

Before the late Michael Jackson "bad" meant the opposite of good.

If you have an interest in the changing meaning and usage of the English language you should check out the British National Corpus

[bnc] British National Corpus

Over 100 million words of real, spoken and written English

Results of your search

Your query was
scan
Here is a random selection of 50 solutions from the 663 found...



A19 863 One way to handle different bit mapping schemes is to include in the header details such as the number of bit planes, bits per pixel, pixels per scan line, and the number of scan lines.�



B7M 348 The world relies for much of its weather data on a network of satellites, which are either stationed in a fixed position above the equator or which travel over the poles to scan the globe.�


CR7 1736 And although a certain number of eager thirty-something listeners will scan the radio dial in search of Mr Branson's yuppie rock, more will discover the channel gradually, perhaps by accident.�



CRE 1994 From the shadows of a doorway on 79th Street, Pie'oh'pah watched John Furie Zacharias emerge from the apartment building, pull the collar of his jacket up around his bare nape, and scan the street north and south, looking for a cab.�



FPF 56 She let him scan her face for whatever it was he sought there and said, `;Yes, but beautiful evenings at home, you know.�

Researchers using the corpus actually found that some things taken as gospel by grammar books were not how people actually used the language.

Language changes all the time and just because somebody uses a word differently doesn't necessarily mean they have "slaughtered the term".

There are so many Englishes in the world today, and new ones developing all the time. Who's to say which one is 'correct'?

I had students in London who refused to have an American, Irish, Scottish or Australian teacher because they "didn't speak correct English".

Maybe they didn't speak 'correct' English (), but they spoke an English that could communicate with another English. They used some grammar and words differently but they weren't incorrect, just not British English.

Getting way off topic. Time to stop.

Martin

[BIG Mike]

This thread turned into an interesting read, but truth be told, WHO CARES? If you don't like the subject line, unsubscribe and be done with it. If you're not subscribed, hit the spam button.

Why get pissed off about it? You're never going to change how some so called marketers do whatever it takes to get you to open their emails. Right, wrong or indifferent, you've probably got more important things to do than rant about something that's been problematic since commercial email started.

[BIG Mike]

Originally Posted by Martin Luxton

<snip>

re: ESL/EFL speakers who have gone through formal courses.

Many foreigners know English grammar better than native speakers.

In the days before I was a teacher a German guy asked me

"Would that be a gerund or the present participle?"

"Ugh, yeah, er . . . the first one . . . ?"

I had no bloody idea because at school my whole grammar education consisted of "a noun is a naming word, a verb is a doing word and an adjective tells us more about the noun".

<snip>

Right on Martin - my wife and I own an EFL school here in Greece and although English is my native language, I am not allowed to teach grammar.

Even the students know this - when they have grammar homework to review, they're quick to point out that "Miss Anastasia" told them not to let me check it, LOL.

My wife, whose native language is Greek, knows rules of English grammar so obscure I think she got them out of some ancient, lost scrolls somewhere, LOL. She rocks

And I agree wholeheartedly - students learning EFL tend to know far more grammar than their native speaking counterparts. I've often wondered just how well American and British students would fair on the Cambridge or Michigan lower exams compared to EFL students.

[Martin Luxton]

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

My wife, whose native language is Greek, knows rules of English grammar so obscure I think she got them out of some ancient, lost scrolls somewhere, LOL. She rocks

Mike, the funny thing about all those rules is they usually come with the disclaimer "with some exceptions" and it takes more time to learn the exceptions than it would to just learn everyday examples and apply them.

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

And I agree wholeheartedly - students learning EFL tend to know far more grammar than their native speaking counterparts. I've often wondered just how well American and British students would fair on the Cambridge or Michigan lower exams compared to EFL students.

When I first started teaching, I took a TOEFL exam and only got 76%. That was a real shock to the system and a very humbling experience! Those exams are so much about practice and technique. Now I can get 50 - 60% on the listening comprehension without even listening to the tape.

I would make all your new native speaker teachers take a TOEFL and IELTS test 'cold' just so they can see how much more there is to language teaching than just being a native speaker.

Martin

[rapidscc]

What?

Using re: is crossing the line? And it's a tactic?

Well we control what we read..We are the ones clicking to open the mail..

I suggest that if you see an email with re: at the subject line and you don't know who it came from then simply don't open it...

Then you don't have to say that somebody is "Crossing the line"....

oMar

[ExRat]

Hi,

At very real risk of repeating myself for the third time, multiple people are still suggesting that the way to 'control what we read' is to either 'not open' an email, or to 'delete it.'

I suggest that if you see an email with re: at the subject line and you don't know who it came from then simply don't open it...

When I receive a Re from anyone other that a known friend or company, it gets deleted immediately.

They are trash most of the time

I have never seen such a compelling argument for running an opt-in newsletter and have to admit that I never realised that there was such an aversion to using the unsubscribe button - which in turn makes it even more illogical that we get so many threads complaining about the content of opt-in emails.

Is it because people enjoy complaining so much, that they are scared to remove the source of the complaint from their lives?

{goes off to make some stickers for my bedroom door and ghetto-blaster - 'unsubscribing is not a crime'}

[Kishor Karsan]

Hi

Just want to point out that every thread here from everyone on this forum has "Re:" in it...

So are we all scammers and scamming each other ? Are all our threads just scams?

Kishor

If I really believe that my subscribers would gain a lot of value from my email, I wouldn't mind using Re:

They will forgive me for using that tactic when they see the good content in the email.

If they don't, let them unsubscribe.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WRONG. THERE ARE ONLY PERCEPTIONS.

AND PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

[ExRat]

Hi Kishor,

Just want to point out that every thread here from everyone on this forum has "Re:" in it...

What, even this one?

[Paul Myers]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WRONG. THERE ARE ONLY PERCEPTIONS.

AND PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

That's crap. It's a crutch for lazy thinking and evasion.

It's also illogical. If the OP perceives it as wrong, that must be reality, based on your comments. Therefore, you've proved yourself... wrong?

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. And it ignores the fact that we deal with others who have their own perceptions, which may conflict directly with our own, and thus affect our "realities."

There is nothing "creative" about an epistemological blank.


Paul

[thegoddessofeleven]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

That's crap. It's a crutch for lazy thinking and evasion.

I have to disagree, Paul. I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future. I realize that not everyone subscribes to the philosophies of the law of attraction, but that's what it's centered around and I've seen it proved true time and time again in my own life. Miracles happen when you choose to stubbornly focus on the positive. I'm a career optimist for that very reason, choosing to constantly look for the "good" that can be taken from any situation.

It's also illogical. If the OP perceives it as wrong, that must be reality, based on your comments. Therefore, you've proved yourself... wrong?

No. Reality is subjective, and that's the point. If the OP is so offended by a marketer's use of "RE:" in the subject line that he will unsubscribe from their list, "reality" for the OP is that it's wrong and deceitful. Personally, I'm not bothered by it at all. The use of "RE:" in the subject line is perfectly acceptable to me. I don't feel deceived or connived in any way. That is "reality" for me. Whether the marketer intended to deceive isn't the point. It's all about how the situation is interpreted by the recipient.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[ExRat]

Hi thegoddessofeleven,

I have to disagree, Paul.

I don't think you realise that the points you have made are not actually any reason to disagree with Paul's assertion.

1)

I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future

2)

Miracles happen when you choose to stubbornly focus on the positive

(sidenote - you can class the things that happen when you do this as miracles, or an entirely logical outcome - same thing, different words, your version (miracle) is usually used to sell more books, it's the sizzle)

It's entirely possible to believe in what you have said in 1) and 2) above, without disagreeing with Paul when he says that this -

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WRONG. THERE ARE ONLY PERCEPTIONS.

AND PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

is crap.

I think you are confused. And personally, I find it easier to avoid that confusion when I refuse to 'subscribe' to any neatly compartmentalised set of rules which have been presented in that fashion purely to sell more products -

I realize that not everyone subscribes to the philosophies of the law of attraction

Instead, just subscribe to these -

a) you can influence and improve your own life (and that of others) by the actions that you take and the decisions that you make as well as your underlying attitude

b) being and staying stubbornly positive is a very good idea

In my opinion, if you leave all 'laws' and talk of miracles out of it, then it all becomes easier to digest, live by, and stay unmuddled about. Those things (laws, talk of miracles) are historically proven to complicate issues, and to be the tools of the mass-manipulator.

[AndrewCavanagh]

If I get an email starting with "RE:" in the subject line and it's obviously not a reply to an email I sent or an update on an email they sent previously I usually:

# 1: Unsubscribe from that list.

# 2: Delete the email.

If I really want to stay on the list I'll just delete the email.

I never read those emails.

Kindest regards,
Andrew Cavanagh

[Paul Myers]

Eleven,

I have to disagree, Paul. I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future.

That is a very different statement than the one I challenged. I would completely agree with this - as written.

No. Reality is subjective, and that's the point.

No. Perception is influenced by subjective filters, which affect our actions, which in turn influence the results we obtain.

Reality simply is. It is what exists regardless of what we think about it.

"reality" for the OP is that it's wrong and deceitful.

Tautological argument. "Reality is subjective, and his opinion is thus-and-such, therefore it's reality."

That is "reality" for me.

That is your opinion. And that opinion is not something I would question or attempt to deny, as a guide for personal behavior.

Opinion is a judgment based on one's interpretation of one's perceptions, as filtered through the accumulation of habit arising from previous relevant judgments, which is a damned long way from reality.

The fact that we believe our opinions to be based on sound judgment and accurate perception is normal. It's also a cause for lots of subjective opinions being stated as absolute truth. An error you did not make, tankeweverrymutch.


Paul

[TimothyW]

Originally Posted by Kishor Karsan

Hi

Just want to point out that every thread here from everyone on this forum has "Re:" in it...

So are we all scammers and scamming each other ? Are all our threads just scams?

Kishor

Ahhh, Kishor -- that is absolutely not true.

The only posts in this thread that have "re:" in them are the ones that *ARE* truly (legit) responses (replies) to the OP.

Therefore, the only re's in this thread are LEGIT re's, therefore they are NOT scams. Note: The op does NOT have re in it.

So, actually your post proves my point for me -- by showing the *difference* between legit re's and scam re's.

Cheers.

-- TW

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by thegoddessofeleven

I have to disagree, Paul. I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future. I realize that not everyone subscribes to the philosophies of the law of attraction, but that's what it's centered around and I've seen it proved true time and time again in my own life. Miracles happen when you choose to stubbornly focus on the positive. I'm a career optimist for that very reason, choosing to constantly look for the "good" that can be taken from any situation.

Okay, let's take this example as it relates to what you just said.

John Doe's perception of reality is that he can jump off of the top of a
100 story building, land head first onto the concrete below him and live.

He proceeds to do this and is squashed like a bug.

His perception of reality may have very well been that he will survive
the fall, but the actual reality is that he's dead.

I'm sorry, but IMO, perception is not good enough an excuse to call
something a reality.

Yes, some things in life are subjective, such as the statement, "Chocolate
ice cream is the best ice cream on the planet."

To some people, probably many, that is a true reality. But to others,
chocolate ice cream would make them gag, or worse.

Trying to convince a chocolate hater that chocolate ice cream is great
is futile.

However, let's take the jumping off a 100 story building scenario.

If we can show the person who believes that he can jump and survive
50 videos of people who did just that, and all died, we might (note the
word might) be able to convince him that he's wrong about his
perception of reality and may even get him to change his mind about it.

I'm not arguing that people will believe what they want to believe and
that in their mind, that makes it real.

But that doesn't make the thing itself real.

If that were the case, every institutionalized person in this world would
be out walking the streets.

[thegoddessofeleven]

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi thegoddessofeleven,

I don't think you realise that the points you have made are not actually any reason to disagree with Paul's assertion.

I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify this statement for me. My opinion conflicts with Paul's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the very definition of "disagreement." I don't believe the statement is crap-- I believe it's a very basic element of the way this universe functions. If that's not a reason to disagree with Paul's assertion, I don't know what is.

(sidenote - you can class the things that happen when you do this as miracles, or an entirely logical outcome - same thing, different words, your version (miracle) is usually used to sell more books, it's the sizzle).

Without knowing what specific incidents I'm referring to when I say, "miracles," I don't think you can accurately make that statement-- unless, of course, you believe that there's no such thing as a "miracle" and that all occurences, no matter how abnormal, supernatural, or seemingly impossible are "logical outcomes." If that's the case, I'll concede the point.

It's entirely possible to believe in what you have said in 1) and 2) above, without disagreeing with Paul when he says that this - is crap.

My entire point is that I do not believe the statement is crap.

[thegoddessofeleven]

LOL.

Okay... it wasn't my intention to turn the thread in a philisophical direction, but I accept responsibility for doing so. I suspect that my opinions on the nature of the universe are of little interest to the majority of the forum, but I would be happy to discuss the "jumping off a building" scenerio if anyone indicates an interest in proceeding down that rabbit hole.

In regard to the subject at hand, whether the use of "RE:" in the subject line of an email is dishonest seems much more like one of those things about which "people will believe what they want to believe and that in their mind, that makes it real." The OP has drawn a firm line and stated flatly that it's dishonest. "Perception is reality" seems like a very apt point in this case, and I see no reason to disagree with such a statement.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Okay, let's take this example as it relates to what you just said.

John Doe's perception of reality is that he can jump off of the top of a
100 story building, land head first onto the concrete below him and live.

He proceeds to do this and is squashed like a bug.

His perception of reality may have very well been that he will survive
the fall, but the actual reality is that he's dead.

I'm sorry, but IMO, perception is not good enough an excuse to call
something a reality.

Yes, some things in life are subjective, such as the statement, "Chocolate
ice cream is the best ice cream on the planet."

To some people, probably many, that is a true reality. But to others,
chocolate ice cream would make them gag, or worse.

Trying to convince a chocolate hater that chocolate ice cream is great
is futile.

However, let's take the jumping off a 100 story building scenario.

If we can show the person who believes that he can jump and survive
50 videos of people who did just that, and all died, we might (note the
word might) be able to convince him that he's wrong about his
perception of reality and may even get him to change his mind about it.

I'm not arguing that people will believe what they want to believe and
that in their mind, that makes it real.

But that doesn't make the thing itself real.

If that were the case, every institutionalized person in this world would
be out walking the streets.

[ExRat]

Hi,

Blimey.

Thanks for this Paul. Recognised it many times, but didn't know the correct word to use.

Hi Steven,

John Doe's perception of reality is that he can jump off of the top of a 100 story building, land head first onto the concrete below him and live.

He proceeds to do this and is squashed like a bug.

Sorry to be a pedant, but I take issue with the use of 'squashed' to describe what happens when he hits the concrete. The person moves towards and hits the floor, not vice-versa

Hi thegoddessofeleven,

I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify this statement for me. My opinion conflicts with Paul's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the very definition of "disagreement." I don't believe the statement is crap-- I believe it's a very basic element of the way this universe functions. If that's not a reason to disagree with Paul's assertion, I don't know what is.

Clarification - I didn't state that you weren't disagreeing with him, I stated that -

I don't think you realise that the points you have made are not actually any reason to disagree with Paul's assertion.

Bolded for emphasis.

............

Without knowing what specific incidents I'm referring to when I say, "miracles," I don't think you can accurately make that statement-- unless, of course, you believe that there's no such thing as a "miracle" and that all occurences, no matter how abnormal, supernatural, or seemingly impossible are "logical outcomes." If that's the case, I'll concede the point.

You did provide a specific context for me to comment upon - that context being that the miracles are directly related to and the outcome of 'stubbornly focusing on the positive'. See here -

Miracles happen when you choose to stubbornly focus on the positive. I'm a career optimist for that very reason, choosing to constantly look for the "good" that can be taken from any situation.

On that basis, yes I see a positive outcome from 'stubbornly focusing on the positive' as being much more of a logical outcome, than anything resembling a miracle. Although I have met many people for whom finding a positive outcome from any form of action themselves, would be miraculous ;-)

..........

My entire point is that I do not believe the statement is crap

It might be now, but it most definitely wasn't in your last post, the one I commented upon.

..........

I suspect that my opinions on the nature of the universe are of little interest to the majority of the forum

Interesting conclusion. But one that is commonly assumed by someone who cannot/doesn't want to deal with logical arguments against those opinions.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi Steven,

Sorry to be a pedant, but I take issue with the use of 'squashed' to describe what happens when he hits the concrete. The person moves towards and hits the floor, not vice-versa.

If a safe landed on him just as he was hitting the pavement, he'd most
certainly be squashed.

Would you have preferred splattered?

[Tyrus Antas]

TW: does your post has anything to do with hotels?

Tyrus

[genietoast]

If it's not RE: to an email I originally sent, it's a putz way of attracting attention.

Spammers are getting craftily wackier. I guess being the FBI director, the Nigerian Reverend in need of charity, Australian millionaire dying of cancer got boring, and winning the uK lottery got boring.

It's like paparazzi for internet marketers.

[ExRat]

Hi Steven,

Would you have preferred splattered?

I'm a lot more comfortable with that.

Although, technically, it would be prudent to just leave it that the ground got in the way of his intended journey to the centre of the earth.

As for the safe -

If a safe landed on him just as he was hitting the pavement, he'd most
certainly be squashed

The safe was in a rush to get to the centre of the earth before the man, but the ground got in the way of both of them.

[Paul Myers]

Roger,

I'm a lot more comfortable with [splattered].

Why did I just hear John Cleese saying, "This is an EX rat?"


Paul

[Ken Leatherman]

Originally Posted by mikemcmillan

New Research Shows Famed Explorer May Have Been Murdered

Social Security Code Is Cracked
ID Is at Risk if Born in These States

Singer 'Fighting for Life' in Hospital

Sweetener May Prevent Tooth Decay

Pro Tennis Player, 24, Found Dead

Former Ice-Skating Champ Arrested

Restaurant Chain Files Bankruptcy

Five-Time Boxing Champ Back Behind Bars

Notice how each of these teaser lines gives you some info, but each lacks the one thing you want to know about the topic. Notice the one about the Social Security code being cracked. They mention five states but don't tell you what those five states are. It pulls you in and you want to know if you live in one of those states.

That is exactly what a good email subject line should look like. No deception. No con job. Just a tag that makes the reader want to click to learn more. That's good marketing.

Rant completed.

Hey Mike,

Not Fair! Not Fair!

You teased me with the headlines and now I have to go find them and read the stories.

Now you have brought this conversation up on a level where it is indeed positive and helpful. I appreciate you doing that.

Ken Leatherman
The Old Geezer

P.S. Re: above post. Please don't wombat me for implying you other folks did not make a good post, but then again ..........

[John Taylor]

Steven,

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Would you have preferred splattered?

I preferred Splattered so much I built
a social bookmarking site around it.

I really wanted to create a tomatoe
splattering site, but I couldn't find a
suitable script.. ask Paul - he'll "get"
the reference.

John

[TimothyW]

Ex Rat ---

He does get squashed. Every action has an equal + opposite reaction. (or should I say, "RE:action"). So, in effect, the concrete IS squashing him -- he is being 'squashed' by the concrete.

-- TW

[Paul Myers]

John,

I really wanted to create a tomatoe
splattering site, but I couldn't find a
suitable script.. ask Paul - he'll "get"
the reference.

Blast. You've reminded me of one of the great disappointments of the past few months. They took the thing down.

No more pelting Puddy with produce. [sigh]


Paul

[jamesburchill]

A thought:

Socially acceptable "lines" are defined by group consensus. What was unacceptable a few years ago (like rock and roll) is now acceptable and considered almost quaint today!

The lexicon of email is morphing and changing constantly. After reading this thread it seems to me the underlying issue is not so much the choice of words, rather the intent.

To add fuel to the fire you could argue that using "FW:" my also cause issues.

Bottom line, if you BAIT & SWITCH - no matter how you present it - you will ultimately suffer. Tricks are not required in the long run.

Just my 2-cents worth.

Finally, I suspect this thread was "sparked" intentionally. Fun that it is, ultimately the way you write email is a personal choice. To unilaterally declare "right or wrong" leaves you open to looking goofy when the lines move. And move they will...

[ExRat]

Hi Paul,

Was that the 'slowburn' and 'chainsaw' one? I enjoyed that site too. I seem to remember it being used as a bonus for anyone who unsubscribed with a rant?

Hi --TW,

He does get squashed. Every action has an equal + opposite reaction. (or should I say, "RE:action"). So, in effect, the concrete IS squashing him -- he is being 'squashed' by the concrete.

Some would say that rather than the concrete 'squashing' him, the equal and opposite reaction is that the concrete is resisting his attempts to pass and therefore absorbing his potential energy and redistributing it sideways - which is still nothing like 'squashing'

[Paul Myers]

Roger,

Was that the 'slowburn' and 'chainsaw' one? I enjoyed that site too. I seem to remember it being used a bonus for anyone who unsubscribed with a rant?

Yep. NetDisaster.com.

I had a picture of me that nettled folk could "throw tomatoes" at, if it made them feel better.

It was much more fun belting Bob with beefsteaks...


Paul

[Suzanne Morrison]

It doesn't really bother me when someone uses "Re:" in the subject line of an email.

The one that does bother me is when someone adds "(personal)" or "personal" to the subject line and it is clearly not a personal email, it is a broadcasted message to everyone on their list. I've had at least 3 of these in the last 24hrs.

Cheers,
Suzanne