Survey: Was I Out of Line?

[c9]

Situation: A non-close friend emails me, several of my friends, and several of his friends, with the current "boycott the gas companies" chain letter that's going around, encouraging a boycott to push gas to a cheaper price. I Reply All, with a short but polite rant about it not helping, and introducing the concept of Peak Oil. Acquaintance "really resents" my use of his email list. I apologize for his discomfort, and ignore all responses to my email (despite really wanting to get into it).

Full response text:

Sorry everyone, but I'm really happy to see high gas prices, and you should be too. Here's why:

- the world is running out of oil
- the air is being destroyed by smog from your cars and SUVs!
- and yet we still pay less for gas than we do for bottled water.

Many scientists agree that the world has reached what's called "Peak Oil," which means we've used up half the oil on the planet. Consumption is still growing 2% per year, which means we all have to think up *replacements* for oil, not protests. When it's gone, it's gone.

More info: http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=41

Cam

Emotions: I'm really pissed off by his response, but because of that mood I know better than to write back and fight him.

Questions: Did I do wrong? Did I react correctly in the end? What would you have done?

Why didn't I just ignore it? Because I've found that in the past few years I've gotten less and less activist and caring, and I ignore things too much. I miss being strongly in favour of or against things, and actually pushing viewpoints and debating things. Those debates drive leapfish round the bend, I'm certain. :-)

Comments

[bartok.livejournal.com]

I've discovered that arguing with people will just not change their minds, despite how reasoned it might be. I'm fighting a similar thing here with the people who will comment they want the NZ National party to win as they'll get tax cuts and "they don't have kids anyways, so the family benefits Labour is promising don't matter."
A lot of people have a tough time seeing the "bigger picture".

[rebelprince26.livejournal.com]

no way did you do the wrong thing. you were standing up for what you believe in. And by doing that, you need to understand that you will have opposition. So fuck the friend, you said he (she?) wasn't that close anyway. You made your point, and that's all that matters.

[primary-suspect.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, if someone sends you an email with other people's email addresses in the clear (ie: not BCC) then its fair game to Reply All.

[skaughty.livejournal.com]

IMHO, you did nothing really wrong. He felt comfortable enough to push his agenda vis a mass e-mail (albeit through his own direct contacts), and you provided a very reasonable response. Maybe your response *should* have just gone to him, but then again, he seems to be lacking a degree of social onus by becoming angered by the fact that his arguably selfish 'gotta lower the gas prices' agenda was undermined. For example, if I were to write a mass e-mail to a group of people that claims product X is the best thing on the planet and everyone should buy it, but you happen to know that product X causes severe health problems, I should think it appropriate to enlighten all those who I had previously written stating that product X was the shit.

And in the response you provided, you did not call him a dumbass or say that he was wrong, wrong, wrong... You just provided an alternative, enlightened view. His anger seems a little over-the top.

BUT I STILL THINK YOU'RE A GOOD PERSON

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

Honestly? Really honestly? I was part of that exchange, and I thought your response was rude. Not because you were wrong on the issue--I rolled my eyes when I got B.'s email and I agreed with yours.

But, yours came across as making him look foolish, (presumably) in front of people you don't even know. I've done that before (in response to a virus hoax email,) got called on it, and decided that I was rude and apologized.

Now, that said, I'm starting to find it rude just to blindly pass things along (like B. did). And it's recently been brought to my attention that it's poor etiquette not to use BCC, which never occurred to me. So he's not in the clear either. But that doesn't justify a rude response.

If I were you I'd apologize.

[cap-hill-latte.livejournal.com]

Digression from your point, but on topic:

Funny, I just had a conversation about whether or not to be happy about higher gas prices earlier today.

On one hand, I like that prices in North American are starting to reflect what gas really costs so that people here might start looking to other forms of transportation/energy.

On the other hand, I'm really annoyed that the result of the higher cost is to line the pockets of oil execs - it's not that getting gas to North America is really getting this much more expensive. All of the subsides are still in place as far as I know. (If I’m wrong here, let me know.)

On the third hand, as someone who lives 12miles from her place of employment and does not have a good public transportation option, and really doesn’t want to move to the ‘burbs I’m thinking more and more of buying a Smart/Prius/something that doesn’t cost $3 to drive to work and back each day.

[bonoboboy.livejournal.com]

I think you did the good thing, babe.

[miket61.livejournal.com]

I got one of those, and replied only to the person who sent it with the link to snopes.com about how dumb it was (and how OLD it was).

I think if someone sends out chain crap to people, they did enough to make themselves look foolish before you even got involved. No harm, no foul.

[jpman.livejournal.com]

I had this whole thing typed explaining why you were both at fault, but it sounded too preachy.

Basically, you both goofed. Accept your mistake, maybe in an apology point out his mistake by not bbc'ing, and move on. :)

[simplisticton.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you did was right or wrong, but I can tell you what I did:

I cut and pasted your reply to the people who sent me the same chain-letter (with all the recipients in the CC: field, same as yours).

Like Jeffery Goines said, "Fuck the bozos!"

[mightycodking.livejournal.com]

If you are trying to train people not to CC you poorly thought out chain-letter spam, then I think you did perfectly.

Realistically, you may need to be diplomatic. But I say, "Go you."

[thespos]

I don't think you did anything wrong. If someone chooses to put you on a public mailing list, you have every right to reply-to-all. I try not to circulate chain e-mails, and if I do send out a large e-mail of importance to people I do know, I BCC everyone so their identities remain private.

And I agree with you - boycotts of this type are not where we should be focusing our efforts.

For my part, my response to the offended person would have been along the lines of, "please do not include me on these types of mailings in the future, because I do not agree with this position, and I will continue to communicate my preferred alternate strategy, with or without your permission."

[socalledeconomy.livejournal.com]

GOOD FOR YOU!!!

I can understand both sides-- you trying to disseminate accurate and helpful information, and the emailer feeling stupid for forwarding useless 'boycott gas' spam without understanding the underlying causes.

Hopefully a few people on the mailing list will take the time to follow up on Peak Oil info. You're a better man than I. I don't think I would have apologized for correcting misinformation.