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

[ExRat]

Hi Paul,

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...

After our many early discussions, I found that my preference was to use all available methods to commit atrocities upon your image - although slowburn was a particular favourite, as I derived extra feelings of power from destroying you through an act of careless absent-mindedness - IE -

'I knew I shouldn't have left my cigarette resting on Paul Myers. Now I've got to light another one...'



Hi Suzanne,

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.

As an email marketer, there's an easy way to indemnify yourself from subscriber-wrath when using this trick.

Simply change {first_name} for {first_insult} and any good autoresponder will do the rest for you automatically.

For example -

Dear Fatty

No subscriber can sensibly accuse you of not being personal in the email

[Diana Lane]

Re: The effects of jumping off a very tall building

He who jumps is not squashed. He is dispersed.

[Paul Myers]

Suzanne,

On that one, I will second the motion, and move to smash the offenders with a large mallet, on their most sensitive parts.

That is an outright lie, and deserves pain.


Paul

[thegoddessofeleven]

Originally Posted by ExRat

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.

Brief recap:
Creative Thinker: Perception is reality.
Paul: That's crap. It's a crutch for lazy thinking and evasion.
Me: 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. [...] Reality is subjective, and that's the point.

I concede! I can see that the way I chose to word my post made it unrelated to both Creative Thinker and Paul's posts. The thought was there, but the obvious statement/response relationship was not. I suppose I was operating under the assumption that "reality is subjective" tied back to "perception is reality" firmly enough to warrant the rest of the post. I can see that that's not the case, and the entire post was, in fact, an unnecessary tangent.

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

It seems that you've made the assumption that, because I attribute these miracles (or "incidents," if you prefer) to "stubbornly focusing on the positive," that they can't actually defy traditional laws of nature.

thegoddessofeleven: "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.

You are glossing over the fact that, in the same breath, I also stated:

I would be happy to discuss the "jumping off a building" scenerio if anyone indicates an interest in proceeding down that rabbit hole.

I'm not trying to back down from the discussion... I'm trying to respect the fact that the forum isn't intended for philosophical discussions and that people may not want to read (and, in fact, may be offended by) a 50 post discourse about "Stephanie's Opinions Regarding Life, The Universe, And Everything." (Side note: admittedly, I probably shouldn't have even made that first post, for that very reason. I jump the gun sometimes, and reply before considering such things. )

I took Steven's post to be a rhetorical example and not an actual request for an in-depth discussion of metaphysics. HOWEVER, if someone here is actually interested in getting the blow-by-blow breakdown of my personal beliefs (which would be necessary to explain my response to the "jumping off a building" scenerio), I'd be willing to have that discussion. Probably not in THIS thread, though... it sounds like a topic more suited for the "Mind Warriors" board.

[Diana Lane]

Oops! I forgot!

I forgot to mention that 'Re:' does not bother me. Unlike 'Oops! I forgot!'

[Paul Myers]

Roger,

After our many early discussions, I found that my preference was to use all available methods to commit atrocities upon your image - although slowburn was a particular favourite, as I derived extra feelings of power from destroying you through an act of careless absent-mindedness

[chuckle] Only the old-timers will get that one.

Sorry. I need snooze, or I'd abuse you with another apt assemblage of alliterative allegory.

The sleep gods beckon...


Paul

[Sean Kelly]

"RE:" is an email term.

If email never automatically put this at the beginning of a REPLY we would NEVER use "RE:".

We would use "Re."

We abbreviate words with a DOT not a COLON.

Example:
"mister" is abbreviated as "Mr." not "MR:"

People associate "RE:" with an email reply or forum post reply and not the word 'regarding' which was the original intent of "RE".

The understood use of "RE:" is "in reply to" something when it comes to email and forum posts.

Forget the semantics where "oh look, RE means regarding", thats not the point, the POINT is the meaning people automatically take away from seeing "RE:"

Using "RE:" in an email to me that was NOT in reply to something I sent is misleading.

This is ok though:

RE-OPENED: Eban Pagan's Home Study Course (Today Only)

Sean

[JohnMcCabe]

Geez, catch a few hours of sleep and look what happens...

Originally Posted by -- TW

Ummm -- John -- I did no such thing. Subject line of op never did contain RE:

Can I get some of what you're smokin'?

TW, it must have been second hand smoke, but what ever it was must have been strong. It muddled my brain into seeing something that wasn't there.

Factor that in, and the post never did make any sense, so I've deleted it. In the words of Maxwell Smart, "Sorry about that, Chief..."

Originally Posted by -- TW

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

Given the content of this thread, I don't think it's possible to say with absolute certainty that anyone using that convention has deliberately intended to deceive anyone. Such intent might be there, and one could collect anecdotal evidence in support of such an argument, yet I still don't believe such a statement can be absolute.

Perry Marshall just posted a snip of video on his blog where he calls a person's email box a very intimate space. I happen to agree with him. I think it's a large reason why email practices that rub people the wrong way elicit such emotional responses.

I'm one of those 50+ types who was taught to use "Re:" in business correspondence to telegraph the subject of a business letter. Given the intimacy of email and the common practice of client developers to use "Re:" on any reply, I will probably amend my use of the code in the future.

I don't want people seeing smoke where there is no fire.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

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.

Actually, according to some research, that video would likely only be effective if the people who jumped and died were similar to the potential jumper.

If you showed a middle-aged man with the notion he could fly videos of women, teens, or children hitting the ground, his brain would very likely tell him that it didn't matter; he was different. Show him videos of other middle-aged men painting the concrete, and the message very likely would get through.

[ExRat]

Hi Paul,

another apt assemblage of alliterative allegory

Nice!

Only the old-timers will get that one

Possibly, but bearing in mind our public personas, comments and differing lengths of attendance and experience of forums, I imagine many could predict the nature of our initial conversations - and hence, why I burned you after them. (Although I am actually joking about the atrocities - I found more suitable victims. Joking again actually).

Hi thegoddessofeleven,

It seems that you've made the assumption that, because I attribute these miracles (or "incidents," if you prefer) to "stubbornly focusing on the positive," that they can't actually defy traditional laws of nature.

I haven't made an assumption, it's more of a personal opinion. And I didn't come to it because of your attribution.

Different people have different perspectives, obviously. Some like to find more logic if they can, whereas others are more comfortable seeing more miracles than logic. I think it's a grey area that's best left grey, and left for the individual to decide upon.

BUT in the specific circumstances, I don't find it that difficult to see way more logic in the assertion that 'stubbornly focusing on the positive' is likely to cause positive outcomes. To me that's really logical.

RE - (pun intended)

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

Although I respect your desire to not drift off topic, I still don't agree.

I can see the logic (pun intended) in your explanation, but when you say -

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

...it seems of little relevance, except if someone is trying to demonstrate indirectly that they have taken 'umbridge.'

I say this because I feel the same about my own opinions on this subject, yet regardless, I still foist them upon everyone whether they like it or not, as do many others.

Therefore, in this 'climate', why would you be so self-conscious of your own opinions on this matter, if not to demonstrate that 'umbridge' has been taken?

I'll concede on this point to you though, that it would be best if I took my philosophical theories and put them in my pipe and ignited them. Sorry for the hijack everyone.

HOWEVER, if someone here is actually interested in getting the blow-by-blow breakdown of my personal beliefs (which would be necessary to explain my response to the "jumping off a building" scenerio), I'd be willing to have that discussion. Probably not in THIS thread, though... it sounds like a topic more suited for the "Mind Warriors" board.

Yeah, that sounds like fun. If you start the thread in there, PM me and I'll jump in.

Hi John,

I don't want people seeing smoke where there is no fire.

Was that ending to the second part of your post, an intended pun on the first part?

Can I get some of what you're smokin'?

If not, it was still pretty fitting.

[John Taylor]

Paul,

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

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

I hereby declare the "Splat John Page" open!



John

[Martin Luxton]

Originally Posted by John Taylor

Paul,



I hereby declare the "Splat John Page" open!



John

John,

You bought the wrong tomatoes - they are too firm. They should be soft and rotten and drip everywhere.

Martin

[ExRat]

Hi John,

I hereby declare the "Splat John Page" open!

Hi Onslaught,

I think that's a resounding 'No!' from here

[TimothyW]

Originally Posted by 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

I once received the snail mail equivalent of that -- and it made me chuckle...

It was a POSTCARD marked "CONFIDENTIAL."

Cheers.

-- TW

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by -- TW

I once received the snail mail equivalent of that -- and it made me chuckle...

It was a POSTCARD marked "CONFIDENTIAL."

Cheers.

-- TW

That's even better than the one I got yesterday marked "Urgent and Confidential"...

Addressed to "Current Resident" and sent bulk mail.

[ahlexis]

I know this sounds crazy, but perhaps they're right.

In most cases, it is typed to deceive. Any excuse falls flat, imo.

Key word? TYPED.

Most of the time when you click on "reply" to respond to a previously sent email, you don't type. The software or email service inserts this for you.

However, you as the recipient of the email would not know that...until you open the email.

Semantics? Perhaps.

Re: = Reply, or Re:= Regarding. Does not matter.

Do you care about the response of your emails? Then test, test, test. That is the only way to know for sure. It's just like the graphic headline on the sales letter. Maybe it reduces results, maybe it doesn't...your mileage may vary, only way to know for sure is to test it. Or maybe try asking your list. A lot of marketers have tried things that get on my last nerve. Like someone mentioned above, the following annoy me a lot more than the "regarding":

NOTIFICATION OF PAYMENT

URGENT!

Your order has shipped

You Won!

Congratulations !

Especially when their only intent is to deceive me into opening an email I would not otherwise think I need to open right away.

[netkickstart]

Time to lobby the email client developers to use a new prefix on replies. Then we'd really know whether someone was being sneaky or using a shorthand of Regarding in order to fit the rest of the subject within the viewable area.

[indexphp]

Wow OP... I don't know why you are so sensitive to this. Deceit is a powerful word and I think going a bit too far. If you don't like it, get out of marketing, because I can think of tons of things off the top of my head that would cause you to pull your hair out.

[Sfrew]

IMO, the use of RE without more is not inherently evil. If the reference is not accurate, then we are getting into less acceptable conduct, etc.

Now, I do NOT use that tactic. I am not advocating using it.

My point -- If the worst thing someone ever did was use RE inappropriately, then I don't have an issue with them. In fact, I think there are probably a lot more constructive issues for folks to get all hot-and-bothered about and that could do more for the reputation of IM than wasting emotion and time on this on a professional forum.

[Kevin Riley]

E-mails with RE: in the subject line which are just marketing ploys and not a true RE: get my attention. I automatically unsubscribe from that list.

[Lance K]

Getting technical and stating that RE: simply = Regarding is cute and all...BUT in email land it means someone is replying to a message you sent to them. Survey 1,000 people and see what they say. I'd wager that 95+% would agree.

I mean honestly, that's the purpose of a subject line isn't it? To tell you what the message is about. So there is NO NEED to include RE: in the subject line if it isn't a reply.

So to me the technical definition of RE: doesn't matter. Because in email land it is taken to mean a reply to a message you sent.

And if it's not truly a reply, it is so OBVIOUSLY a PLOY. Tricking people is ALWAYS harmful to the long term health of any enterprise.

[SullyUI]

I think the only appropriate use for "RE:" is in a sales letter, otherwise in an email it's a definitely deceptive marketing ploy. And, it doesn't work because I'm sure a lot of people will unsubscribe after seeing it.

[Paul Myers]

Lance,

Getting technical and stating that RE: simply = Regarding is cute and all...BUT in email land it means someone is replying to a message you sent to them. Survey 1,000 people and see what they say. I'd wager that 95+% would agree.

You may be right on the stat for all I know. Question: What percentage of businesspeople with offline experience would see it that way?

I'm betting it's a lot lower than 95%.

Are some people using it to trigger recognition skills that say, "That's an answer to an email I sent?" Sure. No doubt. And that's sneaky, if a very mild form. I don't care for it, but there's enough of the other group - people who take their business correspondence classes seriously - to make me wonder and leave some room for doubt.

I'm not defending being sneaky. I'm not saying what anyone should do about it if they suspect it. That's not my business. I'm just pointing out that there is a very real and sensible explanation that has roots in serious business practice and which explains it in some cases.

As Razer and a couple of others pointed out, that's likely to be done more by "older" folks, relative to the online environment. If you see a 20-something using that, it's slightly more indicative of a gimmick.

I don't like it much, but it's a pretty small character in the pantheon of questionable marketing ploys.


Paul

[John Durham]

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.



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.

You are not wrong. Reality is absolutely subject to observation and perception. Hasn't any one read Schrodinger's Cat?

that being said: when I "perceive" that someone is trying to manipulate me into thinking I had written to them and they are responding to me (and it isnt true) the "reality" is that I delete them.

Unless they realize or care that they have been deleted, this doesn't effect them, and they continuing to go on sending other people emails entitled "re:".

While in my own "perception" I have avenged myself... it is only because I "observed the vengeance..." if they observed it as well by chance, then maybe to them it's not "vengeance" at all, but rather "attrition..."

So the definition of the outcome of that situation is, once again, subject to the observers perspective.

[luvmijaz]

Yes, that is something that can get vastly irritating. I would think that unless you get mass amounts of emails, you would be able to figure out if this was a reply to an email you sent or not.