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

[TimothyW]

Using "RE:" in the subject line.

It signals the crossing over from being a help to your list, TO trying to 'put one over' on them.

It's a SCAM, and ONLY meant to DECEIVE. Pure + simple.

-- TW

[thegoddessofeleven]

How do you figure? "RE:" simply means "regarding."

I can testify that it gets my attention. Of course, I immediately recognize whether it's a response to an email I sent out or not, but I often at least read the headline where otherwise I might not.

[JVManna]

It should depend on the context. If it's simply a way to goad the user into open the email -- absolutely, that is shameful.

But, if it's a follow-up message 'regarding' a previous message, it's acceptable. All depends on what the end user experience is like.

Do it with ethics, finesse and style; not cunning tricks.

~Joe

[JeremyHoover]

Originally Posted by thegoddessofeleven

How do you figure? "RE:" simply means "regarding."

I can testify that it gets my attention. Of course, I immediately recognize whether it's a response to an email I sent out or not, but I often at least read the headline where otherwise I might not.

I agree. I often use Re: to indicate the content of an original message (not a reply) to another person, or even a group.

I understand the point, and have received some messages from some marketers that are clearly intended to get you thinking they replied to one of your messages. I don't like that approach, although it is effective in getting my attention, which means it must work.

[Scott Ames]

Originally Posted by -- TW

Using "RE:" in the subject line.

It signals the crossing over from being a help to your list, TO trying to 'put one over' on them.

It's a SCAM, and ONLY meant to DECEIVE. Pure + simple.

-- TW

These are the ones that get me upset if they are just a pitch:

NOTIFICATION OF PAYMENT

URGENT!

Your order has shipped

You Won!

Congratulations !


Using RE: gets opened because it implies they are responding to something I sent. I'm not as upset with that one however. Perhaps I should be.

[CmdrStidd]

I have seen it used quite effectively by many online marketers.

For example: one marketer I know of was planning a launch of his new product on a particular date. The day before the launch he sent out an email with the subject line of "RE: Launch scrubbed..."

It got my attention and when I read the email he was informing everyone that he was pushing back the launch date because there were problems with part of the offer and he wanted everything perfect for the launch.

[TimothyW]

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

[Steven Wagenheim]

Would you have a problem with the following email subject?

"Regarding The Recent Amazon.com Affiliate Marketing Tax Changes?"

There is nothing wrong with the letters RE per say, unless you are trying
to infer with the rest of the subject that you are responding to an email
that the person sent to you such as...

"Regarding your email to me"

That is just a flat out lie and yes, would get me to unsubscribe.

But the first one WOULD get my attention and WOULD get me to read it,
especially if I was an affiliate for Amazon products.

You have to look at the context of the whole subject and not just the
RE:

[John Durham]

Originally Posted by thegoddessofeleven

How do you figure? "RE:" simply means "regarding."

I can testify that it gets my attention. Of course, I immediately recognize whether it's a response to an email I sent out or not, but I often at least read the headline where otherwise I might not.

A BOLD young Goddess indeed.Would he prefer that we use the whole word "regarding"?

[MichaelHiles]

I just recently caught one in Barracuda from a .cn domain that said, "WHY DON'T YOU RESPOND A$$HOLE?"

Cute. Too bad I suppress all .cn email.

[Sven Schoene]

Originally Posted by Scott Ames

These are the ones that get me upset if they are just a pitch:

NOTIFICATION OF PAYMENT

URGENT!

Your order has shipped

You Won!

Congratulations !


Using RE: gets opened because it implies they are responding to something I sent. I'm not as upset with that one however. Perhaps I should be.

You absolutely spoke my mind! I HATE mails like that. Especially these "Your order has shipped" or "Payment received"/"Payment has been sent" emails are annoying and misleading as hell.


I don't know if it's just me because I'm just on all these email-lists for about six months, but I have the feeling that the email-headlines are getting more and more misleading and stupidier. Does anybody agree with me?

[CmdrStidd]

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

I am sorry but you are way off base here. There are times and situations that having that as a subject line is perfectly legit even if it is a first contact situation. I gave one in my previous statement and now Steve has given another, and chances are, neither of us had to think long and hard about it to get a good example.

Show me where the marketer was being outright deceptive when his subject line read "RE: Launch Scrubbed..."? If you can show me where he was being deceitful then I will accept your argument but if you cannot then you need to realize that no rule is absolute, not even yours.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Would you have a problem with the following email subject?

"Regarding The Recent Amazon.com Affiliate Marketing Tax Changes?"

There is nothing wrong with the letters RE per say, unless you are trying
to infer with the rest of the subject that you are responding to an email
that the person sent to you such as...

"Regarding your email to me"

That is just a flat out lie and yes, would get me to unsubscribe.

But the first one WOULD get my attention and WOULD get me to read it,
especially if I was an affiliate for Amazon products.

You have to look at the context of the whole subject and not just the
RE:

I have forgotten how well you could frame your arguments. You always have great logic and solid examples. I am glad to see you are back with us.

That said, I have to agree with you, Steve, this is yet another example of proper use of the RE in the subject line for a first contact. You are not saying here that the receiver ever contacted the sender for the information but rather what is contained in the email is specific to that one topic and that one topic only.

It is kind of like a one sentence outline of the emails contents.

[AmyBrown]

As you can tell from the responses the line isn't absolute. FWIW it crosses a line for me as well. I have a pretty low tolerance for shenanigans so I'll generally unsubscribe from a list if that subject line is used.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by CmdrStidd

I am sorry but you are way off base here. There are times and situations that having that as a subject line is perfectly legit even if it is a first contact situation. I gave one in my previous statement and now Steve has given another, and chances are, neither of us had to think long and hard about it to get a good example.

Show me where the marketer was being outright deceptive when his subject line read "RE: Launch Scrubbed..."? If you can show me where he was being deceitful then I will accept your argument but if you cannot then you need to realize that no rule is absolute, not even yours.


I have forgotten how well you could frame your arguments. You always have great logic and solid examples. I am glad to see you are back with us.

That said, I have to agree with you, Steve, this is yet another example of proper use of the RE in the subject line for a first contact. You are not saying here that the receiver ever contacted the sender for the information but rather what is contained in the email is specific to that one topic and that one topic only.

It is kind of like a one sentence outline of the emails contents.

Thanks. I'm glad to be back as well.

The problem is, many people think that RE means responding to. It doesn't.
It means regarding.

But I agree, RE with a subject like "your email to me" would have me
opt out so fast that the person's head would be spinning. But for the
OP to make a blanket statement like this just doesn't make any sense.

However, and this is the ironic part, it doesn't matter what we think. If
this is how HE sees RE then any time he sees it, regardless of the context,
he's going to opt out of the list.

Having said that, you can't manage your list emails by this one opinion.

Test a subject like this (with a legitimate use such as the example I gave)
and see how your list responds. If you get massive unsubscribes, you
might want to think about using it again. If not, don't worry about it.

Just make sure you use RE responsibly.

[Clark]

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

Hey TW, are you deceiving and scamming us here 'cause you just used Re: in the subject line of your Rely?

Good times.

Cheers!

[ShawnC]

Really it's just to the point that ANY headline is just like the headlines from Viagra and Pharmacies and Jewelry and whatnot.

It feels no matter what headline I use, it can simply be taken as spam.

If someone actually double opted-in to my list, I think it's okay to us RE: to get their attention. However, another way to look at it is they'll read it when and if they want, knowing that's it's valuable because they recognize me in the 'from' field.

Shawn

[Robyn8243]

Originally Posted by Clark

Hey TW, are you deceiving and scamming us here 'cause you just used Re: in the subject line of your Rely?

Good times.

Cheers!

Just what I was thinking Clark.

Re: is commonly used in all business correspondence to indicate what a letter
is regarding.

I really don't get how you arrive at the conclusion that the only
reason to use re: is to scam people.

[TimothyW]

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.

Then there's the 'innocent' "OUT" of, "well I only meant it to mean [insert excuse here]."

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

[ExRat]

Hi,

Lots of people saying it 'upsets' them and that it's 'shameful.' Lots of powerful emotions being discussed.

Whether the method is right/wrong, good/bad, brilliant/shameful why not find some kind of positive from this? I found one.

If a marketer is the type who would do those shameful things, which would in turn illicit an emotional response from you of a negative nature, which of these scenarios is better for you? -

1) they are not quite so smart, and they give you a glaringly obvious, giveaway, unmissable signal that you need to take the appropriate action - unsubscribe and avoid.

2) they are much smarter than that. They realise that it's much wiser to build rapore and trust slowly but surely, suck people in, maybe get a few small commitments off them to qualify them as someone who has accepted the rapore and trust and is ready to buy, and then when the time is right - bang! - hit them hard with the 'shameful' side of their marketing and take them to the cleaners for a whole bunch of money.

They realise that using their most shameful tactics to get better open rates is not as wise and powerful as playing it nice and trying to appear to be what you want them to be and saving that 'demonstration of shameful behaviour' to extract as many gains as possible at one strategically planned point in time.

Would you prefer that marketers who have the capacity and intention to do something within their marketing that in your eyes is 'shameful' stop doing 1) and start doing 2) instead?

By NOT unsubscribing, particularly if you also continue to buy, you are actually giving them stats that tell them that it works. You are encouraging them to annoy you more.

I don't say it to sound smug, but to help - I don't get upset about email titles and content as much as others around here. Perhaps that's because I only see annoying ones from a particular person once?

[TimothyW]

Hi Roger -- I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify. Thanks. PS: I'm not saying 'marketing' is shameful. Quite the opposite. As you know, I'm into sell-sell-sell! -- I'm saying marketing *designed to deceive* is shameful.

[Sven Schoene]

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi,

Lots of people saying it 'upsets' them and that it's 'shameful.' Lots of powerful emotions being discussed.

Whether the method is right/wrong, good/bad, brilliant/shameful why not find some kind of positive from this? I found one.

If a marketer is the type who would do those shameful things, which would in turn illicit an emotional response from you of a negative nature, which of these scenarios is better for you? -

1) they are not quite so smart, and they give you a glaringly obvious, giveaway, unmissable signal that you need to take the appropriate action - unsubscribe and avoid.

2) they are much smarter than that. They realise that it's much wiser to build rapore and trust slowly but surely, suck people in, maybe get a few small commitments off them to qualify them as someone who has accepted the rapore and trust and is ready to buy, and then when the time is right - bang! - hit them hard with the 'shameful' side of their marketing and take them to the cleaners for a whole bunch of money.

Would you prefer that marketers who have the capacity and intention to do something within their marketing that in your eyes is 'shameful' stop doing 1) and start doing 2) instead?

Wow, just like in the other thread: Great point of view, never thought about it.


So, now I'm going to stop complimenting your for your clever views on marketing and start thinking about how to put this info to use in my own marketing efforts.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Onslaught

RE: she'll love your penis

Uh, if I may, just one question: can you please tell me who "she" is and how I can get in touch with her?

[ExRat]

Hi --TW,

Hi Roger -- I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify. Thanks. PS: I'm not saying 'marketing' is shameful. Quite the opposite. As you know, I'm into sell-sell-sell! -- I'm saying marketing *designed to deceive* is shameful.

Yes I know you are sell-sell --TW

Well without going into the specific differences between persuasion and deception (see Blair Warren for that one) I would say that in many ways it's a thin line between the two, many seem to find it easy to slide across

Post three said -

that is shameful.

I just picked up on that word to demonstrate that it causes an emotional response in some of the marketers discussing it here. Others get 'annoyed' by it.

In a nutshell, I'm saying, if they use RE in a deceptive way -

Don't complain about them giving you such an obvious signal that it's time to unsubscribe. It could be worse (see 2] in my previous post for an example).

Hi Sven,

So, now I'm going to stop complimenting your for your clever views on marketing and start thinking about how to put this info to use in my own marketing efforts.

Cheers again! That's exactly what I would like someone to do if my post helped them. That, along with realising that there are lessons everywhere, sometimes right in front of our noses, and often they are found by taking a negative and turning it positive, but they are also found by taking a step back, looking at things from a different angle and asking - 'what is the lesson here?'

I'm saying the lessons are - weigh up each list and try to find the point in the process where you want to 'hit them hardest' (using that term loosely) and risk losing them. Is it the subject line, the initial content, or later on in the relationship?

Also, don't allow other peoples' marketing to cause an emotional response. It tends to happen when one is thinking as a consumer rather than a marketer. Spend less time in that zone - it's cheaper, and the lessons are easier to find because one is less busy ranting about it (and only attracting others who agree) which leads nowhere except to ending up feeling like an annoyed consumer. Instead, one could be focused on finding the lessons.

[Steven Wagenheim]

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.

Then there's the 'innocent' "OUT" of, "well I only meant it to mean [insert excuse here]."

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

I just want to make sure I understand you.

So if I were to send out an email with the subject:

"RE: Amazon's Change To Tax Rates For Affiliate Marketers"

I'm trying to deceive my subscribers?

Okay.

[Goatboy]

Is the complaint really abour RE: or is it about what comes after?

[Trader54]

Has anyone tested it and have stats?

If it works then people that receive the email do not feel they are being scammed.

If one feels they are being scammed then usually they won't buy or they will even unsubscribe, that is what I do.

How can one just come out and make a blanket statement based on your own feelings if you have no stats to back it up.

Real stats will quickly tell you what your subscribers think of your emails, whether you use Re: in the subject line or not.

[susanm]

I agree with the OP. I know what RE: is supposed to mean, too. But when it comes to email, unless it is in response to an email I sent previously, 99.999999% of the time, it IS just trying to trick me into opening it.

It used to piss me off, too. Now I just delete it unread, regardless who it's from. If I miss the greatest deal of the century by doing so, well, I am willing to risk it.

Susan

[ExRat]

Hi susanm,

It used to piss me off, too. Now I just delete it unread

I'm repeating myself, but if you do that rather than unsubscribing, you will get more emails that have to be deleted, you might get new tricks that piss you off again, and you're not doing anything to discourage the practice, whereas an unsubscribe might.

Can anyone here give me a good (IE logical or beneficial) reason why they prefer to stay on a list when someone sends stuff that makes them either get pissed off, or delete it immediately - with the exception of 'they sometimes send great stuff, but sometimes the bad stuff too'?

[Karen Blundell]

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

you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. as we all are. What seems like a scam to you may be perfectly fine to someone else. Personally, I think there are far worse deceptive marketing tactics.

[AmyBrown]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I just want to make sure I understand you.

So if I were to send out an email with the subject:

"RE: Amazon's Change To Tax Rates For Affiliate Marketers"

I'm trying to deceive my subscribers?

Okay.

What does "Re:" add to the message in your subject line? I've never seen a use for it other than trying to get someone who is scanning subject lines to stop and at least briefly wonder if it's a personal reply.

[TimothyW]

Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe

Edit: This post made more sense before TW removed the "RE:" from the subject line of the original post. Please disregard...

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

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

[ExRat]

Hi,

Not everyone is fooled by the deceptive use of RE. I'm not entirely sure why, but I process my emails differently to many others here. I quite often look at the sender, which email of mine it is sent to and quite often the content - before I read the headline.

I tend to scan the whole thing at once, but the one thing I would miss is if RE is in the subject line.

I guess it's something to do with my manual spam checking process.

Hi Razer Rage,

Blimey. That's severe wombatitis :-)

[AmyBrown]

Originally Posted by Razer Rage

If they were scanning subject lines, adding "Re:" wouldn't make the slightest difference as they would be examining each subject line intensively.

I personally just skim through my subject lines, thank you very much.

[/wombat]

(Sorry, I have few other vices than being strict about being grammatically correct, and for some reason misusing the word "scan" bothers me more than any other, save for chatspeak.)

I'm the anti-wombat but I don't believe I'm misusing the word:

• examine minutely or intensely; "the surgeon scanned the X-ray"
• examine hastily; "She scanned the newspaper headlines while waiting for the taxi"

Consider your wombat card revoked

[Karen Blundell]

Originally Posted by Razer Rage

Actually, it means "reply" to most people. They think they're replying to an email that they never sent in the first place.

I agree with the OP. 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.

If you want a responsive list, then build trust with them by GIVING them high quality information WITHOUT selling them anything.

Then, when you do sell your list anything, MAKE SURE it WILL help them and provide helpful, useful, and relevant information to what they are trying to do.

All those "sneaky conversion tricks" are worthless. Word gets around about them pretty quickly once they become popular, so they become useless.

When it comes down to it, there is no substitute for quality and buyer's trust. High conversions with your list must be earned. They do not happen overnight with the latest "sneaky conversion trick".

English Grammar 101: "Re" means and has always meant "Regarding"...

Usage Example: I reply to ad in the paper for a job. So I send off a cover letter along with my resume. In my cover letter I include something like this:

Re: Your Ad in the Toronto Star classified dated July 7, 2009, for the position of Web Developer.

capiche?

in short, I disagree with the OP that using Re is meant to deceive unless the sender writes: Re: your Recent Order, or Re: your recent email, when I clearly had no prior communication with the marketer

[ExRat]

Hi Karen/Amy,

Your responses make me think of my current favourite made-up word that I chose recently, to describe what so often happens when one is wombatting, but it backfires -

womback

The classic one is when someone wombats someone else about their use of 'bad grammer.'

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

Hi Onslaught,

Don't blame us, blame Paul Myers.

If you sign up to his list - here - best marketing newsletter (no aff link)

You get some good freebies, including -

If you don't laugh out loud at the wombat story, you need a humor transplant. Seriously

[Mark Sandquist]

Funny... I just had a Skype conversation with a few junior marketers about this exact subject.

One of them asked me if I thought it was "morally OK" to use "Re:" in the subject line of a broadcast email that was not a personal reply.

(There are a few email marketing teachers who are teaching people to use this as a way to increase open rates - it works because people generally don't pay attention to detail and skim even subject lines, rather than read them, and don't notice that it's not a subject line that they ever wrote)

My reply was pretty much what Steven has said here... It means "regarding".

The fact that email client programs plunk it into the beginning of the subject line of a reply by default doesn't change its meaning to "This Is A Reply To Your Personal Email". The intent of the email client doing this is to say "Regarding..."

Then the junior marketer asked me, "what about all the complaints I will get from people who are pissed off that I tricked them into thinking it was a reply to their email just so they'd open it, and then unsubscribe"?

My reply to that was simply,.. If they'd turn against you so easily for something as silly as that, you're probably better off without them on your list anyway. Someone that hot-headed, unobservant and bitter would not likely ever buy anything from you and that's the reason you have a list... to have a captive audience to sell to.

Additionally, if they only openned your email because they thought it was a reply to theirs... what in blazes are they even subscribed to your list for in the first place?

Naturally, he then asked me if "I" use "Re:" in the subject line.

I told him, "absolutely... I will normally use it when I'm following up on a previous email that I wrote to them... kinda like... "Re: yesterday's email about such-n-such..."

I have actually never received a complaint about doing this because always begin my subject lines with the personalization token...

Example: {!firstname_fix}, Re: yesterday's email about such-n-such...

Notice how the "Re:" is not at the beginning of the subject line... their name is.

... but the "Re:" is there to give the reader the indication that this email is about something previously mentioned or discussed, rather than an email about something new all together.

Obviously, if people go willy nilly about it and use it out of context like...

"Re: buy my new product just released today!..."

... they are going to look like idiots. Kinda like the dopes who keep using, "bad news" in the subject line when the email has no bad news content at all.

[TimGross]

Ah, another thread of marketers talking to marketers about what they don't like about other marketers.

Time well-spent.

It's awesome how the original poster talking about deception doesn't post using his actual name.

re: Waste of time

[AmyBrown]

Originally Posted by Razer Rage

Quoted straight from google define, I'm sure.

But I assure you, that is not the correct definition for the word scan. Donald J. Sobol, in a popular mysterious series, debunks this myth in his book:

"The verb "to scan" means to examine intensively."

In fact, misusing the word "scan" is actually one of the most common errors in the English language. Most semieducated persons thinks it means "to skim" in reading, which it doesn't.

My point being, Google can hardly be considered a reliable dictionary.

Yes, I'm guilty of using Google as a dictionary. It hasn't failed me for common usage but apparently the jury is out for use around wombats. Unfortunately dinner calls so I won't be able to further research the correct usage of "scan". However, I'm calling womback on semieducated.

[captivereef]

The RE thing is stupid IMO and i am not a marketing genius by no means but lately i have gotten so many pathetic emails with such stupid subject lines that I unsubscribed to almost every list i am on except for 3 or 4.

What happened to a subject line telling you what the email was actually about, and for that matter a marketer who helped you out sometimes with their emails instead of selling every single time!

There are still a few but they are hard to find nowdays!

[Steve Wisley]

Personally, when I see that it is in fact a bogus email and not a real reply I delete it. There are so many eye catching headlines to use why take the chance of turning off your list you worked so hard to get with a cheap shot? I think we just tend to get lazy some times. Your list is your most valuable possession and should be treated like they deserve.

[Karen Blundell]

Originally Posted by Razer Rage

...and, Re: is usually ONLY used in a reply. I.E. when you make a reply, it usually has "Re:" in the title. Therefore, "Re:" in the title would indicate that the email in question is a reply, when it is fact, not.

Sorry, but being technical about the definition can not divert the fact that it is meant to be deceptive in making the reader think it is a reply to an email they sent.

Why else would they add "Re:" to the title? Normally, a conversation starts without it, and continues with it.

I really can't see how anyone could be confused about what is meant by including it. It's obviously an attempt to get the readers attention by making it appear to be a reply.

Of course, whenever I get an email like this, I simply delete it. I can tell right of the bat that there is nothing of value in that email if it has "Re:" in it if I did not start the conversation.

Razer,
did you not read Steven Wagenheim's usage example above? Re is not used ONLY in a reply. Perhaps you have never encountered other usages for the term, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Back to the whole point of this thread - i.e.: deception. I don't like deception either. To me, though, there is a difference between clever marketing tactics and deception. I can usually tell the difference.

[nuz]

I have a small question... How is it deceitful if you know you never sent them an email to reply to in the first place?

Just wondering.

Originally Posted by Scott Ames

These are the ones that get me upset if they are just a pitch:

NOTIFICATION OF PAYMENT

URGENT!

Your order has shipped

You Won!

Congratulations !

Now this I totally agree with.

[ExRat]

Hi,

Wow. So many people who delete rather than unsubscribe. Is that a slip of the tongue, or not?

Hi Razer Rage/Amy,

I call double-womback too, but not just for those words -

Most semieducated persons

Now I have no idea, so I might womback myself, but it just doesn't sound right to me. I would replace 'persons' with 'people'.

[Karen Blundell]

yes, Roger...I agree. "People" sounds better than "persons" though both are right but not in the context above...I think it should read semi-educated people

re: delete vs. unsubsribe. I would unsubscribe if an email offended me that much.

[Karen Blundell]

Razer, what about deceptive sig lines? Do they bother you at all?

Just wondering.

[George Wright]

Hi,

Every business letter you get, if it's "proper," has RE: and it has nothing to do with it being a reply.

Just because a "non thinking" email program has been programmed to "properly" insert it into the subject line does not mean that a "thinking" person can't us it.

If I use it or don't use it it's entirely my business and if I use it, it is never meant to deceive. It's meant to be proper and inform my reader what this is "Regarding."

My email clients are pre programmed to insert my Sig. and the date and If it doesn't I sign it date it myself myself. No harm intended.

George Wright

[Dan Riffle]

Originally Posted by Razer Rage

Quoted straight from google define, I'm sure.

But I assure you, that is not the correct definition for the word scan. Donald J. Sobol, in a popular mysterious series, debunks this myth in his book:

"The verb "to scan" means to examine intensively."

In fact, misusing the word "scan" is actually one of the most common errors in the English language. Most semieducated persons thinks it means "to skim" in reading, which it doesn't.

My point being, Google can hardly be considered a reliable dictionary.

Post edited because Tina cleared it up while I was typing.

[Karen Blundell]

Originally Posted by Razer Rage

You are so predictable.

First part: 7 dollar secrets; the name of the product.
Second part: How to make $3000 in 7 days; a description of the product, or a benefit.
Third part: + Bonus; a bonus which is offered in the review.

How is that in any way deceptive?

But seeing as it bothers you, I'll remove it just for you.

You did not have to remove it, and it really didn't offend me. I was just trying to make a point and amusing myself at the same time.

I'm quite familiar with the product - 7 Dollar Secrets, so you are not "teaching" me anything new.

In my opinion, (I don't expect you to agree) any title that states you can make (insert amount here) in X amount of time is deceptive.

Your response to Tina, by the way, cracked me up and was very revealing.

[AmyBrown]

Originally Posted by ExRat

Hi,

Wow. So many people who delete rather than unsubscribe. Is that a slip of the tongue, or not?

Hi Razer Rage/Amy,

I call double-womback too, but not just for those words -



Now I have no idea, so I might womback myself, but it just doesn't sound right to me. I would replace 'persons' with 'people'.

Persons didn't sound right to me either but not being prepared for the triple-wombat I let it go. "Semieducated" caught my attention. Even the lowly G doesn't have a definition for it. It must be too old.


However, now I need to know if I'm ever asked to scan the horizon if I should be looking quickly or carefully. I guess it depends on what I'm looking for!

[ExRat]

Hi Razer Rage,

When a scanner "scans" an item, it does not pick up small bits of information randomly, as humans do when they skim bits of text, but it gathers ALL bits of information, carefully going over the entire document.

You're basing that on the one definition of scanner - the one that scans a document.

What about radio scanners?

Sonar scanners?

Radar scanners?

How do they fit your description quoted above?

I'll answer - they don't - except the radio one that does both.

A radar scanner looks at the whole picture and shows a tiny amount of info on each finding (a dot).

A bit like when you scan through email headings in a list.

Unlike -

"The verb "to scan" means to examine intensively."

And those scanners existed well before your scanner.

I have to add that I see you arguing in another thread (the porn one), laying down absolutes with no logical reasoning to back up your view, but if I was bothered to reply in it I would disagree with you there too.

There are many people here who seem to believe that because something is their opinion, it must be a fact.

At any rate, the topic of "scan" is waaaaayyyy off-topic here, we were discussing using "Re:" in the titles of your emails (which is a very stupid thing to talk about, when I think about it).

And who exactly was the wombat that caused this enlightening diversion from the topic?

(PS I'm not using wombat as an insult, but rather a term of friendly jest - but you know that, you used it first. Just trying to lighten the mood - no need for 'there's a good lad' - that IS insulting).