What a fucking asshole. Auto-inserted lines are usually easy to spot, and shouldn't be taken offense at.

Nothing annoys me more at work than people who don't put something descriptive into email subject lines, or don't change it when the discussion has wandered way off the original topic. When your boss asks for "did we get that in writing" it often means going back through literally thousands of emails headed "can you check this" "Confirming our conversation" or whatever. And I rigorously file emails under various folders to make it easier to find them later. Still doesn't help.

I once went through legal discovery for a commercial contract dispute. Our lawyers asked for my email archive for the project - all 4.3 gigabytes of it. I handed it over with a "good luck". Turns out they have this specialised indexing software that registers each email as a separate document, sorts and matches threads based on content, pulls out keywords, then they get a dozen junior lawyers or clerks to sift through the hundreds of hits on each to whittle them down to a dozen key emails. By the time they called me in to write my witness statement, they'd found stuff I couldn't have dug out in a million years. All I had to do was confirm I was willing to defend it in court. Shortly after, the claim was settled in our favour, apparently largely due to mine and others records pretty much tearing their case to shreds.

Point is though, you don't have a dozen assistants to sort your email. It's hardly an unreasonable request.

Hmmm...

Amy, as diplomatically as I can express it, I think his point might be worth considering.

Yes, I get that he's writing you requesting free advice. And you're giving it.

On the other hand, in your place, I would also recognize that if people didn't write me asking for free advice, I wouldn't have a column. Yes, I am aware that 99% of your email will probably never make it to print, but on the other hand, so much email at least gives you a choice as to which ones you want to write about. Advice columnists need letters to get paid. Unless you do something unscrupulous and write your own letters.

So, while your request is reasonable, and his insulting response was over-the-top uncalled for, the macro you use could stand to be a bit more friendly.

Yes, it's concise and to the point, and yes you're doing the people a favor by giving free advice, but they're also doing you a favor by making your column possible.

Just my own thoughts.

Oh please. Why is an email macro supposed to reflect the most subservient stereotype of femaleness?
"Please, with pink sprinkles and fairy dust, if it's not too much trouble for you, oh wonderful sweetie...."
He's a douche-bag. Yes, she takes control because it's her work and her time and her advice. Want your head patted? Go somewhere else.
This clown doesn't seem to understand that Amy's (known female) time is money. She doesn't get paid based on the number of letters she answers. She's not doing this as a hobby. She's not atoning for past errors nor trying to score brownie points for the afterlife. This is business.
Frankly, I'd just toss any letter that isn't clear at first glance.

This whole exchange kind of reminded me of the exchange between Harvey Keitel and John Travolta from Pulp Fiction.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRUaDGW7WQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-ZRUaDGW7WQ

"Pretty please with sugar on top, clean the fucking car."

-Jut

Oh, my God, Kate. Insecure much? I'd say "insecure very much."

You actually think that his proposed revisions "supposed to reflect the most subservient stereotype of femaleness?"

Uh, if I were an advice columnist, my macro would look pretty much like his. Mine would say, "Hey, thanks for writing. I'd be happy to answer your question, but in order for me to form the best possible answer, I'll need some additional information. Please answer all my questions fully, leave the header as is and copy this email with your reply. I look forward to hearing further from you. Best regards, Patrick." And I assure you I have never in my adult life been mistaken for a female. It has nothing to do with a "subservient stereotype of femaleness [which is not a word, thanks]." It's called "manners."

I'd think you'd be hilarious to sit down with in a restaurant, KateC. You'd tell the server, "Look, asshole, this is what I want, and I want it prepared this way."

God forbid any woman in that restaurant show even the slightest sign of courtesy in addressing the server while in your hearing. You'd snarl like a demon, "How dare you display the most subservient stereotype of femaleness!"

I think you need to take your hyperactive sense of being discriminated against down a notch. Or several.

Hey, Pax Dickinson is reaching out for advice!

What on earth is rude about Amy's macro? It starts with please and ends with thanks, and the instructions are perfectly reasonable. Yes, the language could be more flowery, but that would only muddle the message and possibly slow down the whole process. The problem with the letter writer's and Patrick's suggestions are that they're too LONG. We all tend to skim our emails, and padding the instructons unnecessarily just makes it easier for someone to miss a step. What a silly reason to take offense.

You actually think that his proposed revisions "supposed to reflect the most subservient stereotype of femaleness?"

Patrick, the letter writer himself instantly escalated from "rude" to "not female." You think women don't get that sort of shit all the time? C'mon.

No, KateC, whom I know in real life, is exactly right with this, and is, by the way, the least insecure person I know.

Why is an email macro supposed to reflect the most subservient stereotype of femaleness?

Furthermore, the big problem with email is that many are too wordy. I mostly apologize when I send emails that are long, because they're hard for people to read (especially since many read on phones) and people are busy.

And Patrick, it isn't a sense of being discriminated against but a sense of this guy's being a ninny who needs to be coddled with every line of type in the letter.

I didn't know who Pax Dickinson is but here:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/09/12/pax_dickinson_defending_racist_sexist_and_homophobic_tweets_as_satire_is.html

Patrick isn't entirely wrong. A bit of explanation as to why would probably help. Doesn't have to be flowery, exactly the same with an added "to help me distinguish your email from others" or somthing like that would do fine. If it bothered the advicee, a polite request for the reason why would have been better than "Holy shit, take control much?" though!

Zut, love that Keitel clip.

PS Harvey Keitel used to be a neighbor, and I was once having lunch (at Bubby's Diner in my old neighborhood, Tribeca), and he sat down with my friend and me. (He knew my friend, who is in the movie biz.) Anyway, he said, "fuckin" or something in some comment to my friend and turned to me and apologized. Quaint and hilarious -- manners from time gone by. Of course, he had no idea that I can have a mouth like a train wreck when I'm not amongst strangers, elderly aunts or 4-year-olds.

Sorry Patrick, gotta agree with Kate and Amy on this one.

Women who are the least bit strong-willed or assertive (as I am) are usually labelled "domineering", "controlling" or "bitchy".

As per this douche's letter.

Dude has a HUGE sense of entitlement as well. As in, "I'm entitled to be treated like a prince by the entire female gender".

This was business, he wanted something from her, not the other way around. She isn't selling him anything, therefore I fail to see why she should bend over backward to make him feel like a special little flower. Ever read letters from Dr's, lawyers, or any other professional? They usually stop just short of "Do it this way dipshit, or I can't help you."

Makes me wonder if he was writing in for advice on a divorce.

I'm going to clarify a bit.
"I want you to do this" gets people's backs up.
"I want you to do this because often works much better. It doesn't have to be too wordy.

The guy is still a prick for his knee-jerk response.

Astra, I certainly concede that the guy is a jerk. And yes, it was entirely inappropriate for him to make his sexist comments.

I also believe that the macro could be couched more politely, and I like Ltw's suggestion. And displaying "manners" does not mean "feminine subservient." If you actually feel that way, you had best not ever wish to meet me in person. In light of your sensibilities, I would behave like the most obnoxious dickhead anyone ever saw, just because I wouldn't want you to think I was "feminine subservient."

Sorry, Amy. I appreciate the fact that KateC is your real-life friend, but she also flew off the handle, big time. Her post reads like a embittered, belligerent feminist rant. It drips insecurity. "How dare you suggest I be more courteous? I am not subservient to men, you vulgar pi-i-ig!."

And don't bother telling me that I'm being unfair. I'm being ten times more fair than her "pink sprinkles" comment.

Speaking of which, her ridiculous resort to hyperbole did not help her cause in establishing herself as a secure individual.

She wrote:

"Please, with pink sprinkles and fairy dust, if it's not too much trouble for you, oh wonderful sweetie...."

Who said that? Who even came close to suggesting anything like that? No one. Again, I like his suggestion, I would have no trouble using his macro and I am not female, nor do I consider myself subservient to anyone.

The only thing I would change is "your interesting inquiry." I would change that to just "writing."

I'm sure not every inquiry you get (or I would get if I were an advice columnist) would qualify as "interesting." In fact, I'm sure some of them are quite dull. I'm sure some of them are sheer agony to slog through. But "thanks for writing," even if it's the most mundane inquiry you've ever received in your entire life or in the life of every advice columnist that ever existed in the history of the world, still demonstrates something: it shows that this person, no matter how dull his request, recognizes that you give advice. And he probably thinks you give good advice...otherwise, why the hell would he write you? "Your advice sucks, but I thought I'd write you anyway, because I want to do exactly the wrong thing."

So, he is paying you a compliment, however obliquely, and I have no trouble saying thanks to him for it. "Thanks for writing," rather than "Thanks for your interesting inquiry." It might not be interesting. Apart from that, I'd use it myself.

You're too nice Amy; I'd have written back:

"holy shit - waste MY time much?"

Amy writes: KateC's comment does not read "embittered" or "feminist rant"-like.

It absolutely does. I read his suggestion (leaving aside his piggish, sexist comments), and thought only that "interesting inquiry" should be changed, and I would use it myself.

KateC went directly for the sexist card, when in fact his suggested revision was not sexist in the least bit, even if his comments weren't.

It does not even remotely resemble her disgusting "pink sprinkles" comment.

On the contrary, if someone wrote me, I would use that macro, with the revision I suggested earlier. And if he had written me back suggesting that my macro sounded like, "Please, with pink sprinkles and fairy dust, if it's not too much trouble for you, oh wonderful sweetie...." I would respond thusly:

"It's called 'courtesy.' Perhaps you should exercise some in the future. We're done here. I will thank you not to write me again."

Quite possibly you and Kate were put off the guy's really boorish, sexist comments, which is perfectly understandable, but there was nothing even remotely resembling femininity or subservience in his proposed revision.

With that said, in light of his comments that he made prior to his proposed revision, I would consider you perfectly within the parameters of appropriateness if you told him to go "fuck off." He's a sexist slime.

Look on the bright side, His reply tells you almost everything you need to know about the root of his problems.

He is defensive, and jumps to conclusions about people,with little or no actual information.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Amy. I see no reason to continue to belabor the deceased equine creature. But you know I still think you're hands-down the best in the business, Amy.

I'm on Patrick's side here. Amy, I sent an e-mail a few weeks ago introducing a topic I haven't seen in your blog. I asked if you had any comments.

Your reply - "Sorry, don't have time to send comments by email. In general, don't approve of hitting. All the best, -Amy"

There is nothing wrong with this reply, however I was left with the feeling that not only did my correspondence offer no value to you, but it was an inconvenience to you as well. I was also left wondering if I should have sent the link through the blog instead of e-mail.

I am not offended by the reply and understand your situation but as Patrick said above - the macro you use could stand to be a bit more friendly.

NOTE FROM AMY: Goo, you didn't ask for advice, which I make clear that I give. You asked me to analyze an article. And seemed to expect me to reply to you personally with my analysis. Awfully presumptuous, but I was polite to you and even answered a little. More on this in my comment way below.

What's next, asking me to do your accounting for free? And then getting huffy about my not being all gung ho about it?

"It's called 'manners.'

I'd think you'd be hilarious to sit down with in a restaurant, KateC. You'd tell the server, 'Look, asshole, this is what I want, and I want it prepared this way.'

God forbid any woman in that restaurant show even the slightest sign of courtesy in addressing the server while in your hearing." - Patrick

I'm having a lot of trouble comprehending the correlation between a columnist's demeanor in providing a free advice and a restaurant patron's demeanor in ordering paid goods and services. Maybe I'm just dense, but it seems that aside from the stretch, the analogy of dynamics is backward.

In utopia, manners should be a given from all parties but it seems kind of obvious that the person asking for (or in this case, demanding) a FAVOR is probably in more of the position to consider kissing some ass.

I would've answered "YES Ma'am is right, dipshit. NEXT!"

Well, that was fun! We got a lot of mileage out of that, and now I want to know what the guy wanted in the first place.

Though it probably isn't as interesting as today's lesson in manners, which at best amounts to "agree to disagree".

Anyway, after I read it, my own first response was 'She said please and thank you, and told him what she needed him to do. Sheesh, what a baby.'

After all the comments, I feel pretty much the same.

Valiant, I was intending to just abandon this discussion; it's serving no purpose, since no one's mind is going to be changed. And I have no wish to offend Amy or get her worked up.

However, putting aside the fact that the man made some rather sexist comments, and intimated that he thinks women in particular should respond in a particular way (though he did not suggest that women should respond only to men in this way), I looked at his proposed version and I thought, "I'd take out the 'interesting inquiry' comment. It sounds a bit sycophantic, and the inquiry might not be interesting at all. But apart from that, I like it. It's polite and not so terse as the one Amy's using now. I'd use it myself."

KateC read the same thing, "Why is an email macro supposed to reflect the most subservient stereotype of femaleness?"

I see the macro he suggested as being polite, and there is not a single thing sexist about it. Men and women would be equally appropriate in using it.

From this, since I see it only as courtesy, but KateC somehow sees it as not only sexist, but "the most subservient stereotype of femaleness [sic]."

I would use it myself. I am not subservient nor female. It courteous, and gender has nothing to do with it, let alone gender stereotypes.

So, from this, I conclude that KateC must believe that simply being polite must be indicative of some "stereotypical subservience of femaleness."

So, I decided I'd have a little fun and speculate that she must be a consummate harridan to servers in restaurants. Wouldn't want to let any inkling of politeness to creep in, least she be acting in way that would suggest "subservient femaleness."

And nothing he suggested even remotely resembled the disgusting "pink sprinkles" comment.

That's all I meant by that, and it's nothing I haven't already suggested above.

I should clarify that comment: that's what I would've LIKED to reply, but if I were in the advice biz and known for promoting manners, of course I couldn't. And neither can Amy. I'm sure she was polite to that douchebag, even after his outrageous comment.

And with that, I refuse to belabor the above points any further. If you can't glean what I was saying above, there is simply no way I could elucidate them further. I am done with discussion.

"They're writing me for advice. Do I really need to clarify why I need them to do this?"

You don't have to, no. It wouldn't hurt to add in "please don't change the subject line so I can keep my emails sorted". A reason goes a long way, and seems a lot less peremptory. People respond much better to a why than a do.

Look, I agree with you to a point. That sort of criticism of someone's writing that you've never met is unwarranted as far as I'm concerned, and I think I've made that clear. But you posted this for our opinion, and I think Patrick is right, you could work on your style a little.

First off Congratulations on a new whiny bitch record Patrick, less than 30 comments til you threw your hissy fit

Second Goo,
Your reply - "Sorry, don't have time to send comments by email. In general, don't approve of hitting. All the best, -Amy"

There is nothing wrong with this reply, however I was left with the feeling that not only did my correspondence offer no value to you, but it was an inconvenience to you as well.

Well . . . she does write a column every week and correspond with scores of people every week leading up to said polished column, plus shes writing a book and commenting here, and reading a book for a radio show every week, soooo yeah, it probably was an inconvenience

I was also left wondering if I should have sent the link through the blog instead of e-mail.

Well . . . she does tell people here all the time not to email her as she doesnt have time to read everything sent her due to her job, her other job, and the two major side projects she uses to drive awareness to her two paying jobs.

Heres a thought. Nearly every day she provides a blog post just for links and new stories. Some of which she goers on to blog about herself. Dont know who told you you were not allowed to use it to post your link and ask questions, but they lied

However, putting aside the fact that the man made some rather sexist comments, and intimated that he thinks women in particular should respond in a particular way (though he did not suggest that women should respond only to men in this way), I looked at his proposed version and I thought, "I'd take out the 'interesting inquiry' comment. It sounds a bit sycophantic, and the inquiry might not be interesting at all. But apart from that, I like it. It's polite and not so terse as the one Amy's using now. I'd use it myself."

It's the part where you keep setting aside the sexist comments that is the crux of the disagreement. Aside from whether Amy's macro text is rude or not (I think it's terse but acceptable), the guy jumped straight to impugning her behavior as insufficiently womanly. And despite all the women posting here that they receive this type of "feedback" regularly and in such terms, you persist in thinking the content of his criticism is usefully separated from his mode of expressing it.

Amy, you're 100% right. The thing that I think other people are saying is you would be more right if you were more polite about it, although I really don't see a need. You said "please" and "thanks" and that should be enough. And for most people, it is. For some people, however, it would seem that it just isn't.

And isn't that too bad?

My mind is channeling Sam Kinison now: Auhhghhhh! Auhhghhh! It's a politely-worded short list of instructions! It's not a personal letter! Ahhghhh!

Get over it, folks.

I hope that's not too many exclamation points.

You know Miss Alkon, I think this is kind of a good example of the importance of customer service.

On the one hand, what he gets from you is 'free' in the sense that yes, you are giving it to him for free.

But what he gives to you is ALSO free...fodder for your column, which you need in order to continue your way of life.

Which one of you would be the 'customer' in this case? People buy the right to tell stories, publish letters, etc. all the time. In this instance Miss Alkon, while 'I' would not find your direct approach at all uncomfortable or disconcerting, it wouldn't hurt you in the least to adjust the tone of your return exchange just a tiny bit.

Will you get less correspondence if you adopt a more gentle demeanor in requests for information? I don't think that would be a problem for you.

Of course, a single mention might not be worth the time to adjust your macro, though I have to wonder how many times it goes out, and then you end up with silence on the other end from someone that felt put off by your brusqueness. If it is never, he may be an isolated nut. However, if you are not given responses to your request for followup on a regular basis, the problem may be on your end.

Its your business, I can't tell you how to run it, but nobody ever hurt themselves by asking the question: "Can I do better?"

What Robert said. Maybe you have so much material coming in for free that you can afford to be be "terse but acceptable" as Astra put it. I wouldn't be like that. I would also have told the original LW to go fuck himself sideways. Those are not contradictory points.

Am I missing something?

In the macro, Amy states exactly what she needs, no more, no less. AND she says please and thank you.

Sounds right to me.

I've sent several links to Amy and always get a prompt response. Never considered the number of words she writes, but come to think of it it's usually no more than one sentence. And I always appreciate her responses because I know she has millions of other sentences to write and I know she doesn't HAVE to reply acknowledging that she recEived my email.

Amy, as an engineer with ADD, I think your macro is perfect. I wish all communication cOuld get to the point in the fewest words possible.

The suggestion is...something else. No, you're not entitled to a compliment ("interesting inquiry") and a quasi-apology ("hope you don't mind...") just because you're talking to a woman, or a human for that matter. No, it's not "polite" to insincerly compliment and apologize all over the place. Some people talk that way as a matter of course, and that's fine, but demanding it of anyone is horrible. Not everyone thinks you're as interesting as your mommy does.

I'm surprised I didnt see more "special snowflake" criticism in the comments, because that's exactly what this screamed to me.

"To me, perhaps not to anyone else, your tone is more medieval dungeon master and less female. Most girls with normal hormone levels and no extra chromosomes..."

So he inferred she's not quite womanly enough because of this:

"Please answer all my questions, don't change the header, and copy this entire e-mail into your reply. Thanks, -Amy"

Gee, how rude. Listen, Amy once gave me permission to feel free to cut off my own head over a disagreement on a hot topic, so I don't exactly consider myself a sycophant, but I do believe she puts enough work and time into her answers and correspondence that I think we can cut her some slack in a request that simply comes to the fucking point of what she needs from a letter writer.

(Pause for key-boarding breath...)

This is as good a way to spend Friday the thirteenth as any, I guess. And what the hell happened to Crid? Anyone? Anyone?

Perhaps all you need to do is add a statement to the effect that following these instructions will enable you keep the electronic conversation organized and quickly respond to their questions once you have all the information you need.

I got all that from your original statement, but there are plenty of people out there who don't understand that not all e-mail systems include the tendril of the earlier conversation in the reply and who haven't experienced the pain of filing e-mail replies whose subject has changed but whose subject line reflects an earlier conversation.

Oh, and that guy is an ass.

Comments like medieval dungeon master, extra chromosome, and your column is ... often rude indicate he has a hyperactive sensitivity gene.

He needs to get over himself.

Stay rude, Amy!

I normally don't give advice to people who are writing me on subjects like business, because I simply have to limit myself, but I very briefly (and I mean very briefly) replied to a person who was thinking of writing an astrology column.

I got this back:

Subject: Re: Question from an Astrologer Thank you so much. I know how much energy answering each email takes.

No cracks about how I must have a dick. Just appreciation for the time I spent (though it was actually minimal) and the knowledge I conveyed.

This lovely reply compelled me to write more -- though I'm now in a time crunch. I just entered the phase on my book where I have a bunch of comments from my editor that have to be answered so they can copyedit the book and get it in to press. (And by answered, I mean, sometimes, I have to write an additional section, and I'm not exactly the Speedy Gonzales of prose.)

Here's what I wrote back -- and mind you, to someone whose inquiry I consider out of the line of things I'm willing to answer:

Thanks - you are so sweet for understanding that. I don't like to let email go unanswered, though I sometimes let some fall through the cracks when I'm very busy. The best person to check out on writing books and articles is Susan Shapiro. She does writing workshops in New York that are often free, and sometimes travels when she publishes a book. Sue has helped people get published who probably had as much a chance of being writers as they did in being recruited for the NFL.

You'll do best by doing a book that helps you get speaking engagements, which pay well, but that takes building a "platform." All the best, -Amy

That email will never make my column. I answered it to be nice, because the guy was nice.

The truth is, every email I answer takes cognitive energy and chips away at the energy I have to put into my writing. I love the mail people send me, even mail disagreeing with me, and appreciate all of it, including links people send me. Sometimes, those links make the difference between my going to bed at a reasonable versus unreasonable hour when I need to be up at 5am to write.

I feel terrible that some email I just can't get to or some falls through the cracks but I do my best, vis a vis being human and having only limited time and energy each day -- while typing crazy-fast. (Patrick, hoping to get to your last one tonight or tomorrow.) But I do want to answer it and really do try.

"Stay rude, Amy!"

Hah - love ya, Conan!

So, Amy, I'm sort of curious. Are there ever moments in your life when you feel like a point's been beaten to death? And well beyond?

Here lies Jenny. Died laughing at the hilarity of Patrick (the same Patrick who spent literally days on this blog pounding on the worthiness of intercessory prayer with a Catholic) accusing anyone of beating points to death and beyond.

Jenny, in a word: "WHOOOOOOOOSH!"

Time and attention are at a premium.

Asking for what you want in a form and fashion that are consistent with what you want to receive, is a big part of getting what you want rather than being deluged with whatever people are doling out.

I imagine that for Amy, the steep opportunity costs of catering to people who need to be coddled makes it worthwhile for her to lose the easily offended, obtuse letter writers in the service of getting on point responses from people who can give her what she needs in order to provide what they both want.

Women are often socialized to get people to like them in order to get what they want, regardless of what we want or whom we are dealing with. It is absurd, and sometimes dangerous.

I think we would be better off if we were taught how to identify what we want and who would be a good fit for a negotiation and exchange - because human beings are not vending machines and being liked is a fair form of social currency but very limiting as a source of identity.

...and thank you Amy for posting the snippet/ recommendation about book publishing. I had the same question but hesitated to ask you because I know how slammed you've been lately. Yet still tempted because your recommendations of James Bell and Elmore Leonard were spot-on.

"Please answer all my questions, don't change the header, and copy this entire e-mail into your reply. Thanks, -Amy"

"..."Holy shit, take control much?"..."

This was fun to read.

Present one simple statement of need/instruction (including a "Please" and a "Thank you") to a Very Special Person and get indignant outrage.

Throw in lots of "but it would have been better if ..." that do nothing to improve the statement of need but do reassure the reader that they are a Very Special Person.

Ha Ha Ha

My husband's a chef. We go out all the time, tip big. And why make this personal, Patrick? I didn't say anything about you.
I think I'm a feminist, but not the women's studies type.

And I'm going to buy the book again. Amy, do you remember the time you posted that it was National Book Week and told us all to pick up the nearest book, turn to a particular page, and post the paragraph beginning at a particular line?

When she announced it, I picked up Amy's book, "I See Rude People," and used that.

Then I waited to see how long it would be before someone realized what I had done. I didn't have to wait long. The very next post in the thread said, "Patrick, you suck-up!"

I howled with laughter. Amy said, "Hey, works for me."

Okay, it was my intention to drop this discussion. I made my points, Amy made hers, neither one of us changed our mind, so any further discussion was pointless, unless we had a mind to bully each other into accepting our position.

There's no point in that. I don't see Amy about to lose every letter-writer she gets because of a macro that Astra accurately described as "terse but acceptable." And even if she did, it's no business of mine.

Then someone asked me for clarification, so I had to repeat myself. Blah, blah, blah.

Well, now I'm back only because I have something to take care of. Kate, you're correct. I should not have made this personal. I'm very sorry I did.

I don't feel that his suggested revision is in any way sexist or subservient. As I said, with some minor changes, that's exactly how I'd do it. Also, in fairness to you, he did specifically say that women should reply this way and deliberately excluded men. I would reply in that way, and I'm not a woman.

But that's repeating myself and I don't wish to do that. Like I said, I've expressed my opinions thoroughly and completely. It's Amy's response and she has the right to do it however she wants. And if I'm ever in a position to receive tons and tons of email in which I'm being asked to answer questions, I would certainly do it my way. And mine would look more like his than Amy's.

"Sorry for the long note, I didn't have time to write a shorter one."

Amy, you've consistently answered the few emails I've sent you in short order, politely and professionally.

Any time I get communication in a tone I don't like or expect, I try to be flexible in my perspective.

I can't see anything wrong with Amy's macro. It gives clear instructions (that her correspondents NEED) and includes "please" and "thank you".

I would have replied with my rates as a dominatrix. My husband and I have had a running joke for years about Wicked Wanda the Whip Lady in Eating Raoul. This guy would have been irresistible.

"Please, with pink sprinkles and fairy dust, if it's not too much trouble for you, oh wonderful sweetie...."

KateC, I think I love you.

I agree this guy is just a special snowflake. However... I was taught that in business interactions, everybody's unspoken question is "what's in it for me". Adding something to the macro like "To help me address your problem, please etc..." would only add a few words but it will make the recipient feel like they can benefit by following the instructions. Unless they are just too sensitive, and in that case, tough luck.

I LOL'd at "Thanks for your interesting inquiry." What a big baby. He overwrites horribly and thinks he is cleverer and more creative than he is. Sometime people respond in unexpected ways, and it's particularly bad form to attempt to correct them so that they fall in line with your personal expectations -- particularly if they're professional writers and experts on manners.

The guy's response was immature, Amy.

How does this compare to when you would leave free, unsolicited advice on stranger's SUVs suggesting they have dry vaginas or tiny penises for driving such gas guzzling monstrosities?

Different situation/context?

Amy, I completely sympathize with the lack of gratitude. I am in a profession where I am essentialy forced to do quite a bit of pro bono work by government regulations, so I see it a lot. On the other hand, your column is itself an invitation for people to get free advice. I recommend doing whatever will make your job easier. If your macro weeds out the entitled jerks, all the better.

Well, it's presumptous as hell to tell someone how to do their job if you're not their actual boss.

I'm also unsure how a phrase with the words please and thank you used appropriately is rude, but I'm dense that way.

Boring to explain, and sort of depressing to need to explain it, but I will.

Thanks.

I see what you mean. But ugly shorts are an environmental disaster, aren't they? LOL.

Hopefully, as electric and hybrid cars become popular, battery manufacturing and disposal won't turn into a tragedy of the commons deal.

Haha.

Patrick above at 5:31pm, starting his last paragraph- But that's repeating myself and I don't wish to do that. Like I said, I've expressed my opinions thoroughly and completely.

uhmm, yeah. This doesn't function.

I actually wrote to Amy once for a problem I was having, which was actually kind of severe.

My problem was solved just by showing the problem causer the response she sent me.

I wasn't really concerned with the language of her request, or her response. Her advice was what counted. And I was actually grateful for her "terse" (read, no nonsense here's your problem, here's what you do) response, because I don't think flowery language coated in several layers of sugar would have done anything to solve it. Her "terse" language actually slapped the problem causer awake.

Dude needs to get laid, and won't with his attitude.

I want to read that letter about the girl with a crush on her cat.

Amy, I’m sorry, the intent of my blog comment was not to annoy you. And after all the comments on this post, I realize your response was most effective. As I stated previously, there was nothing wrong with your response. I wasn’t offended and didn’t lose any sleep over it. It did cause me to wonder if I should have posted my link on your blog rather than sending it by e-mail, a point that lujlp made clear that I should have done. I was offering a blog topic, not seeking a personal reply. Had your response been sugar coated I would not have questioned the method I sent it to you.

And for the record, I agree the guy was totally out of line in his response to you.

Thanks, also, Amy, for giving me a strategy to make some area businesses and museums more mindful of their stupid choices.

My blood boils when I see these people using stockpiled incandescent lighting even though they know the science says inefficient lighting is adding billions of tons of carbon into the air and stressing the grid. It's utter bullshit that a ban had to be put on bulbs, but maybe it's the only way to get these pigs to wake the duck up.

I'm too much of a phoney to try to persuade them, intelligently and face-to-face, so I thought a note taped on their front door would be a viable option. Maybe something like "Change your bulbs to CFL or LEDs , or do you need to use so much energy to see your flat, tweezer dick, you dusty old fart." Or "Join the modern world of CFL and LEDs, or do you enjoy watching children suffer from asthma, you narcissist."

Disgusting.

"My blood boils when I see these people using stockpiled incandescent lighting even though they know the science says inefficient lighting is adding billions of tons of carbon into the air and stressing the grid."

Jason S: do some thinking - okay, better thinking - and you will realize that the incandescent bulb is ONLY an energy liability when the lighted area must be cooled. This is not the case for much of the nation, so a simple plan just doesn't work.

For confirmation of this idea, please search the Web for the traffic-light issue - many states and cities have found that LED traffic lights have to have heaters installed to melt snow that covers them.

"I likewise criticize people I see dropping their coffee cup on the ground, throwing their cigarette butt in the storm drain, and otherwise stealing from me and all of us, in the form of screwing up the environment."

Now, there's some deep, deep irony, coming from a California resident.

I get the concern - but how about that pavement outside? That saved the environment how?

CFLs are horrible for the environment, sure they last longer than incandescent, if you never turn them off. but when turned on and off they last no where near as long