Last Thursday I received a "save-the-date" email for a friend's birthday celebration. It was sent to about twenty people or so, many of whom didn't know each other, but are connected through this friend. As is the custom when someone sends out a group email about a friend, a couple of people felt compelled to respond with simple jokes. The responses were of the usual character .. simple one-sentence comments made in jest .. "are there gonna be any midgets there?" .. "who's charlie?" .. that sort of thing .. about two of these quick emails had gone around when I received another email, only this one of a whole different character .. someone named Justin felt the need to respond with the following:
easy on the "reply all" gang.
Well, our apologies, Mr. Busy Pants. Sorry your important day was disturbed by two emails of a non-professional character. But if you can take time from your highly-important lifestyle to answer a few questions for me, i'd appreciate it.
Firstly, I must inquire into your use of the word "gang". Today's primary use of the word is to refer to a loosely organized group of hooligans whom use colored clothing to identify themselves and are often engaged in illegal activities. I'm assuming that wasn't the definition you intended. Perhaps you intended the older definition? The definition that refers to a group of people who join together frequently for a common reason. Such as a chain gang. Or gang of gold panners. My guess is you used the word "gang" in a patronizing attempt to demean us, as if you were our father, or somehow more mature than us. By calling us "gang", you turned us into the little rascals, while you were the hard-working, mature father. This bothers me that much more when I consider that you are 25, and nearly all of the group you called "gang" is older than you. Way to take the higher road, captain.
Secondly, do you realize the irony of using a "reply all" in order to complain to us about "reply all"? It is the same problem i have with the death penalty. Kill people to teach that killing people is bad. Doesn't make logical sense. So, somehow, you've decided it is ok for you to use the "reply all" feature, but not us. Why not reply to the two people who were responsible for the reply all? Could it be you are just as lazy as them?
Thirdly, i'm troubled by the beginning of your criticism. The "easy on the" part. Primarily, the term is used in conjunction with food, i.e. "easy on the garlic" or "easy on the salt". Sometimes, a girl can be "easy on the eyes". But "easy on the reply all" simply doesn't work. Perhaps it came naturally to you, as you use it in other ways, such as "easy on the anal penetration" and "easy on the ejaculating".
Fourthly, at what point did you become so critically important to the earth that reading two one-sentence emails cost you invaluable time? Is your email inbox that sanctimonious? Did this joke email take you away from a letter you were penning to Kofi Annan? Is it possible you were arranging a truce between Israel and Palestine, and this email came in and fucked it all up? Chill out, hombre. Your life, and your inbox, isn't so important you can't deal with a couple of unwanted emails.
Finally, chief, don't talk to me like I'm a kid. And better yet, don't come to the event you were invited to.
At this point, nobody wants you there, boss. If you come, youre probably gonna have to "reply to all" a bunch of pissed off people.