I love this!

Do you ever get e-mails that were obviously intended for someone else?

I have a Yahoo! e-mail account that I've had for years. It's just a throwaway account, one I use when I want to browse a site that requires you to register first. The user name on the account is my first name and maiden name, so maureen*******@yahoo.com. Apparently, there are not only a lot of people out there with the same first and last name, but everyone who knows those people think we all have the same e-mail address. I just e-mailed some company to let them know their confirmation regarding a blanket they say they sent to me isn't mine. I've received photographs, family reunion updates, Excel spreadsheets full of names, addresses and phone numbers . . . I understand typing an e-mail address incorrectly, but how do you just get a totally different person? How do you not know the e-mail address of the person you are writing to? One of these people with my name apparently works for some political committee. I've received all kinds of information that I know for sure I should not have. And over and over again, I've replied to these messages to tell people they've got the wrong person. Even outside the U.S. I've sent messages to tell people this. I usually get some kind of "oops" reply from the people I tell.

Today was a little different. I just picked up a message sent by some guy to a group of people that starts off by saying "I know I can be critical," and goes on to complain about how some comments to the press were handled -- and specify what "Maureen" could have said. Now, I didn't think his comments were overly critical, but I also got the feeling that the guy writing the e-mail was probably the kind of guy who would annoy me a great deal. Anyway, I couldn't resist hitting "reply all" and letting the guy know, in a smart ass way, that he fucked up. And I thought I'd share. Here's his original message (though I've omitted identifying information so as not to harass the guy unnecessarily):

--- Jon S******* wrote:

I realize I can be critical, but only because I care, so if you do not wish to read this then you should delete this message before reading further.

Anyway, We all have opinions, and I am certainly no smarter than anyone else, but I can tell you that in my opinion, the communication efforts in this campaign needs drastic improvement. Time and time again I am reading articles that have our side explaining things when in fact we should be spinning.

Once again, in today's Times Union, we are explaining on an issue that was raised by the State Democrat Committee when in fact we should have merely thrown it back in their face. I am a former member of the media, so I know of which I speak. When you explain, you are merely filling column space for the reporter. We basically did Liz Benjamin a favor at our expense by going on and on, making what would have been a 1 column article into a 2 1/2 column article in the TU.

Furthermore, saying it is something people do on both sides of the aisle doesn't fly. You have to ask yourself if a comment like this passes the smell test. DID IT EVER WORK WITH MOM WHEN YOU TOLD HER YOUR BROTHER OR SISTER BROKE THE RULES TOO? Of course not, and it doesn't work here either.

Here is how the story could have been handled...

First...the comment should come from the local political team, not a government spokesperson in Washington. When coming from the local campaign the press is much more willing to let you spin, without explanation.

Here is what Maureen could have said...

The Democrat Party and their New York City bosses are carrying water for Tina Gillibrand - the same woman who recently said that campaign contributions should be limited to $250 per person just days before sending invitations to her own $1,000 per person fundraiser hosted by John Kerry. With all her hypocrisy, it is becoming more
and more difficult to take her seriously.

Short, sweet, and off the phone in 30 seconds. Why would we ever want to explain our vote on this issue. It is a losing issue for us. Get off the phone, and stop trying to write the column. Look at Blake Zeff's response. The bottom line is that John Sweeney opposed a bill that he admits would do a good job cleaning up congress. We practically begged for that response. After we engaged them on the issue, rather than spinning, it was a lay-up.

So, the guy basically said "don't take me wrong, but you totally fucked that up -- and here's what I would have done, which would have been much better."

Fine. Except:

1) He's calling someone out on a full distribution list. I think that's chickenshit.

2) The person he's most critical of is not only not on the distribution, but someone totally unrelated to this is receiving what is apparently meant to be a confidential communication.

3) When you are calling for drastic improvement in communication efforts, I say YOU FIRST.

So, here was my response to the e-mail above, sent to all six people on the original message (with their mail.house.gov e-mail addresses):

Greetings,

I promise not to take your criticism personally --
particularly since I am certain I am not the Maureen
******* you meant to receive this message. I'm afraid
this particular communication effort was also at least
partially unsuccessful -- and you may wish to remove
my e-mail address from future distributions!

Maureen

I wish I could be there when he opens it.

If he responds, I'll be sure to post that! I have a feeling that at least some of the people on that distribution will laugh their asses off when they see my message.

*snickering*