People are stupid

[andysocial]

Try to follow this.

• You get an email inviting you to join an online discussion forum (on Yahoo Groups).
• You respond with an acceptance of this subscription.
• You get a lot more email than you expect.

At this point, any sane person would read that email that you get whenever you subscribe to a group, the one labeled "SAVE THIS EMAIL," and find out how to stem the tide. Since you can read the title of this missive, you know that's not what some folks are doing.

• You get mad at these people who are sending you email, so you reply to one with the screaming subject line, "REMOVE ME NOW!!!!!!" You probably have an AOL return address.
• When you are told that every email includes the unsubscription information, you don't email that address to stop the mail.
• You email the person who tried to help you (not the moderator) to tell them you will sue them and Yahoo if they don't fix your shit for you because you're too stupid to read.
• When the helpful person responds that they can't unsub you because they aren't the moderator and that helpful person points you again to the address which will unsubscribe you, you get more irate and send more flames down the pipe.

Is this the behavior of people that should be allowed to use computers? I think not.

Comments

[alparrott.livejournal.com]

Let me guess. This is not apocryphal. This is a true story.

Sad but true

[andysocial]

It's amazing how dimwitted people can be. I actually had two different people threaten to have Yahoo get after me, or that they would sue me and Yahoo for filling their mail box. Strangely, I'm not the owner of the group, and I had nothing to do with their subscription.

Moral of the story: Read your email before you reply to it, and read instructions people give you. These people are too dumb to breed, much less own computers.

Re: Sad but true

[alparrott.livejournal.com]

Remember the anti-DWI breathalyser that convicted DWIs get hooked up to their ignition and they have to blow in before they can start their cars? Why can't we have something like that for computers - like an IQ tester that hooks into the power supply? You pass with a score of 100 or higher and it spits out a one-time code to punch into a keypad. We would probably see a 40 to 50 percent slimming of the traffic on the ol' info expressway.

Re: Sad but true

[andysocial]

Guess Cory never told you about the National Usefulness Test idea. He proposed that you must pass the NUT in order to do many things in life. For example, a low NUT score meant you weren't allowed to vote. A medium NUT score may allow you to vote, but you're not allowed to be in charge. And so on.

This would be a good NUT application. If you can't pass the NUT, you're not allowed to get online and annoy other people who are capable of following simple instructions.

Re: Sad but true

[alparrott.livejournal.com]

And many other things... I'm thinking (for some odd reason) of Army inprocessing.

"Everybody with a NUT quotient of 90 to 100, proceed at your own pace and hand in your travel voucher when you are done. Everyone with a NUT quotient of 70 to 90, we'll just skim through the pertinent blocks. Everyone with a NUT quotient under 70, drop your pens and wait for all the smart people to finish so we don't waste their time."

True high NUT score story: it allegedly takes five days to inprocess Fort Lewis. I will complete it in two days, being allowed to do it on my own, and that's because there's a fixed time for CIF pickup.