Squirrel Thoughts

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This is part of an occasional series on Squirrel Thoughts in which Squirrel effectively, and hopefully humorously as well, blows her top about some inconsequential matter. Enjoy.)

All right, party people. The Internets have been around long enough that we should all know the difference between “reply” and “reply all” across the various means of communication (e-mail, Facebook, YouTwitFace, etc.), and when it’s appropriate to use one or the other. But, sigh, we don’t. So many of us don’t. Approximately 92 percent, according to my estimations.

Like when someone sends out a mass Facebook message asking for people’s addresses because they want to send them Christmas cards/invite them to their wedding/generally stalk them. Five minutes later, I have 600 messages containing the addresses of people I’ve never met, nor ever care to meet because, frankly, their lack of technological savvy/social awareness frightens me.

And, because I’ve unwillingly acquired all these addresses, I’m seriously tempted to snail-mail handwritten directions on how to simply “reply” to the individual who sent the message, who is, in fact, the sole person who wants them to.

It would probably look something like this:

I want to make it clear that I don’t blame the senders of mass messages for this epidemic. They have every right to simplify and save time by sending them. And, obviously, “reply all” can be very handy when you need to keep many people in the loop about something.

I also don’t mean to patronize reply-all-ers. But let’s say you had your pants on backward at work. You’d want someone to tell you, right? You wouldn’t just want to walk around all day with your pants on backward, with people snickering behind your back, would you? No. So you’re welcome, reply-all-ers.

Now, you’ll have to excuse me so I can run to the restroom. Someone just told me I have my pants on backward.