I have major beef with the blind copy function the we can utilize when sending emails... When abused, which is the case in most instances, its such a bitch and cowardly way to go about doing things. It reflects week character, no confidence and false sense of secrecy. It is the Modus Operandi of weasels. In my opinion, there are few times that the email content you are writing is worthy of being Bcc's versus cc'd.
In a simplistic world, I may have a solution to this downward spiraling situation: Make it more work to add a name to the Bcc list.
Before the time of fax and email, it must have sucked to blind copy someone (relative to today of course). It was more work and took quite a bit more time. Being a society of procrastinators, that effort was not going to be put in when you can stay in your office and rock a hoola hoop. With faxes, it became a little easier, and now, its a click away.
We are only getting worse, "We're building a rat ship here. A vessel for sea-going snitches." - Lt. Col. Frank Slade
4 comments:
Even if you couldn't bcc someone you could still forward your email to whoever you wanted to see it.
There is a certain level of shadiness about it I suppose, but what would really be fucked up if the person responded and the other person who was bcc'ed was bcc'ed on the reply without the replier knowning. But still, that email could be forwarded anyway.
Moral of the story is don't put shit you don't want people to share with others in email. I've learned the hard way.
Thanks for calling me back, bitch.
I disagree with you. I love the Bcc: line, here's why.
I often email people for political-type stuff that they (probably grudgingly) accept from me, but that they don't want the other political-type weasels I'm also emailing to steal it for their own selfish purposes.
So I've got a choice. I can be lazy and send out one email, seperating the people whose emails are public (like the folks who work at other political orgs.) from the ones who'd rather keep their email addys private, (like my friends) or I can just not send out things I think are important (ending drug Prohibition, saving Darfurians, etc.) Instead I choose to Bcc people 'cause email addresses aren't the type of thing people want shared with the world.
But then there are the people who'll act shady and Bcc people 'cause they don't want a specific recipient to know that it was sent to the 3rd party and that's mad shady! And in my experience, that kind of shadiness ends up biting the initial person in the arse, in the end!
To: Ziad
cc: luke, d. stephen goldman
bcc: ***********
I agree with Goldman, and I wonder what spurred this on. Is this just a general concern, or did something occur that made you bothered about this?
I think the Bcc is an effective tool if you have the same message for many unrelated people who wouldn't normally receive email from one another. If you have an announcement to make you can send one email with Bcc:s rather than several with regular To:s.
I don't understand the part about rocking the hula hoop. What does that even mean?
Post a Comment