Well he saw right through that error message....

Hence the negative response.

He was obviously too tired to develop something witty to say.

Last weekend I pulled a soggy and bewildered X-ray out of a car that landed in my creek. Cop arrived in time to wrap her in a blanked and stick her in the back of his patrol car. Talk about your four-letter fun ... her, not the cop. Mouth like a sailor. Spent the night in the drunk tank. Her car spent the night in the creek. Late the next morning, she blamed me for putting the creek there. With more four letter words. I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished ...

Just make sure you only use your creek placing powers for good from now on and there won't be any more issues.

> He was obviously too tired to develop something witty to say.

I thought he framed it nicely.

As everybody's eyes start glazing over ...

There will be points when they turn to putty, too.

FILM error - same one you get for whoever greenlit Twilight and the "%"$£! that allowed the new James Bond film to go ahead....

Arguably, there hasn't been a new Bond film since 1983. Some might say '85, nbut that was the start of the Hollywodization,.and thus doesn't count.

You mean the best Bond ever starring the best Bond ever?

No, that was The Living Daylights, in 1987

You misspelled Never Say Never Again .

I love the way people always joke about this. Of course the only actually-good Bond film is On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and therefore by default Lazenby is the best Bond.

The best Bond movie is Chity Chity Bang Bang. Best car, best villain, best Q.

The Rock, aka what happened to Bond, is the best Connery Bond film

You mean [1]this one, right?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBHKVAs85Ko

is OHMSS.

It is just unfortunate it had the worst Bond.

You're forgetting the original Casino Royale. The one with David Niven in it. And Woody Allen. And Ronnie Corbett.

What do you mean this is going to cost you thousands in therapy again now?

At least it didn't have an invisible car in it!

Yes it did - you just didn't see it

You're forgetting the original Casino Royale. The one with David Niven in it. And Woody Allen. And Ronnie Corbett.

Don't forget Peter Sellers.

"You're forgetting the original Casino Royale."

The one with Barry Nelson as an American James Bond? And Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre?

"You're forgetting the original Casino Royale. The one with David Niven in it."

Oh, you mean that hideous spoof. After seeing that, thinking in advance that it was the first of Fleming's books, I vowed that I would NEVER again watch David Niven in any TV show or movie. The movie was an outrageous spoof (for want of a better (or worse) term. I've never regretted the decision.

It is my feeling that "my favorite Bond film is OHMSS" is a thinly disguised code for "I do not like James Bond movies".

Is that OHMSS Law?

It sure is now!

> Is that OHMSS Law?

You just couldn't resist could you?

History suggests we have the capacitance for worse.

The lot of you need to conduct yourselves better.

Sorry, there seems to be a rather high impedance to getting that done.

What a truly revolting notion.

Ampsolutely outstanding.

It had a Bond? I kept waiting for him to show up.

A customer sent a mobile phone photo of an error on their server screen and asked if we could remote in and see what was wrong. How do you explain to someone like that that the network unplugged error would mean we can't remote in.

I had a manager ask me to send a mail to everyone in the company informing them that the mail server was down...

I got a DEVELOPER attaching a Word document with a screen capture in it to a support ticket stating there was a massive authentication error in a production server. Turns out the asshat had forgotten the password and exhausted the 5 failed login attempts. That was it. The ticket had nothing in the description field, except for "look at attached evidence". The word document had nothing but the screen capture of a Putty session with countless login attempts. And it was a darn Sev2. Needless to say, we UNIX guys didn't perform IAM tasks so the ticket was promptly lowered to a Sev3 and sent into the right queue, for them to take care of it during business hours.

Oh the joys of working with TITSUP (Total Inability To Supply UNIX Passwords) staff, in a timezone 12 hours away from yours...

Re: I got a DEVELOPER attaching a Word document with a screen capture in it

That annoys the hell out of me. Users taking screenshots and attaching Word documents containing those screenshots. Just attach the damn JPG or PNG. Let me view the screenshot in whatever viewer I have for that file installed on my device (probably the same browser I'm using to view the ticket) rather than require me to have Word installed.

I've been on a number of customer sites where workstations were really locked down with accessories like paint just not available, yet for some reason word is.

Users are often being ingenious in using word to get you a screenshot, not bloody-minded.

Where I used to work, we had an account manager who would, after sending an email to a client, go into "sent items", open it up, print it out, and fax it to them, to make sure it got there.

I can't imagine why that place went out of business after I left..

Faxes are (were?) considered legal documents.

Your account manager was covering their legal arse.

Exactly. I used to do something similar when sending formal reports that might be used in child protection proceedings or SEN appeals.

Fax the report.

Then immediately send the email with maybe the report attached or at the very least to inform the recipient that the fax had duly been sent.

That way I increased the chance that the fax would be picked up by the right person in that office, and not left hanging around or lost, or missed completely. With that I'd done what I could to ensure the best outcome for the child. And yes covered myself too if the case went judicial and my submission hadn't been included in the evidence pack.

Faxes are (were?) considered legal documents.

Your account manager was covering their legal arse.

Exactly this. Many years ago, in a different life from which I still haven't completely recovered, I used to get involved in the sharp end of litigation.

At the time, many parties, including a lot of law firms, didn't formally accept electronic service of documents even though some individual lawyers were switched on enough to use email. Consequently, it was very common to email the documents to them and then fax or courier a paper copy as formal service.

I gather the courts are more inclined to favour electronic service these days, but the thought of some of those lawyers being allowed to play with anything more advanced than a paperclip is the stuff of nightmares... :)

Ah, the amount of times someone has e-mailed me, then immediately phoned me as well "Hi, I've just sent you an e-mail".

Very nice. Maybe you'd like to give me more than 5 seconds to try reading it first? That's assuming I have time tor read it now and am not in the middle of something far more important...

Thing is.Too many people think it's OK to send routine emails that aren't worth reading and too many people don't read emails. There's probably some cause and effect in there of course. But if you've seen someone's screen with 400+ unread emails showing you'll know that this call makes complete sense. because sender probably knows that otherwise it may never be looked at.

[I know of people who have an official email address and an actual one. The actual one is not shared with anyone unless the person chooses to give it out with a strict oath of secrecy required.. That one gets read. The official one gets, I dunno, glanced at or something. I did something similar at one time - there was an Outlook forwarding rule for important emails].

I think the problem is with email is a lot of what I get sent isn't relevant to me. Now, we actually do have excellent spam filters on the email system, so I only get one or two emails per week from outside the company that are actually spam. Of course, being a requisitioner, I get a *lot* of sales emails from our suppliers (even though I always make sure that whatever option is available for me not to have marketing shit sent to me is set). Thanks to a few rules on the server,most of these are directed to a folder that I check periodically for any important emails. Not found one yet.

My problem is internal spam. Stuff sent to various staff mailing lists by staff. Thankfully, the ability to send to these has been reduced to a few users, who do use them for official company business. But we used to regularly have situations where one user would send an email to half the company moaning about something (the fire alarms and stuff going missing from the office fridge being two examples), then you'd have a dozen people clicking Reply all, adding their own complaints, saying "I agree" or just trying to discuss whatever the problem was.

It actually got bad enough that one of my colleagues did a reply all to one of these email chains (which was all about the volume level of the fire alarms) where he asked all the users didn't they have actual important stuff to discuss, and work to be getting on with.

The poor sod ended up with a verbal warning for that. He was just saying what nearly everyone (on our team at least) was thinking. In his defence, that was the third such email chain that week, and we had each received well over 100 emails between the 3 chains. All of which were irrelevant to most of the company.

The problem with those emails was that while I could (and did) delete them, I had to be careful because in that dozen or so emails about the fire alarms being too loud, there could have been an email about something important, that I did need to read.

No. The real problem is that some twit'll be bound to hijack the inconsequential thread with an actually important message. Framed *within* the cacophony of fire alarm dreck will be a message about something un-related that you needed to know. And they'd blithely assert that they sent it to you. Never mind the the subject was "Re: the fire alarm volume situation", the specifications for the all-important project build were in there. Sigh.

Sherlock, hoping you fiound it...

"Framed *within* the cacophony"

At both Berkeley and Stanford (and SLAC) such messages were deemed "not sent properly", and thus the word not getting out was considered to be the fault of the sender. I managed to convince DEC and a couple other companies to implement the same policy.

Those who refuse to learn from history ...

> "But if you've seen someone's screen with 400+ unread emails showing you'll know that this call makes complete sense."

400+ ??? I have a client who has 25000+ unread in his inbox. And that's only because we archived off the old unread ones a couple of years ago.

Start licking the stamps then...

"That's why I love VoIP. You don't get people phoning up to complain that the network is down."