Re: Stupid Email
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 11:58:14AM +, Michael Stevens wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 11:32:58AM +, Andy Wardley wrote: > > There was a moral in this story but I forgot it in the process of > > rambling on. Probably something about munging Reply-To, or putting > > all middle management up against a wall and shooting them (which ICL > > did a short while later). > > Was this simple yet violent process found to be of benefit to the > company? Probably, but some were left behind and bred - ICL is still haemoraging - but it sure screwed up a certain small software house that employed one of these walking dead: e.g. Two weeks to write a memo to describe what preparation was needed before he could start doing the job he was employed to do! -- Chris Benson
RE: Stupid Email
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Matthews Simon wrote: > > > > Don't listen to this man. His job title may include the > > word "manager" > > but he never has or never will be a "manager" in this context. He's > > far too intelligent for a start :-)= > > Too kind. I usually have to blow my own trumpet. It's always nice to have > someone else blow it for you :-) > Look this is a family list /J\ -- Jonathan Stowe | http://www.gellyfish.com | I'm with Grep on this one http://www.tackleway.co.uk |
RE: Stupid Email
> > Don't listen to this man. His job title may include the > word "manager" > but he never has or never will be a "manager" in this context. He's > far too intelligent for a start :-)= Too kind. I usually have to blow my own trumpet. It's always nice to have someone else blow it for you :-) SAM
Re: Stupid Email
On Jan 24, 3:18pm, Matthews Simon wrote: > Not all of them some of us survived and indeed went on to understand the > error of our ways and start using perl :-) Don't listen to this man. His job title may include the word "manager" but he never has or never will be a "manager" in this context. He's far too intelligent for a start :-)= A -- Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signature regenerating. Please remain seated. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/
RE: Stupid Email
> -Original Message- > There was a moral in this story but I forgot it in the process of > rambling on. Probably something about munging Reply-To, or putting > all middle management up against a wall and shooting them (which ICL > did a short while later). Not all of them some of us survived and indeed went on to understand the error of our ways and start using perl :-) SAM
Re: Stupid Email
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Andy Wardley wrote: > > Meanwhile, the usual bunch of know-nothing, self-important idiots with > nothing better to do (i.e. failed middle management moved sideways to > another middle managment position) starting sending replies to everyone > demanding that they stop being sent duplicate copies of all these different > emails. cc'd to 'icl', of course, because the default (using OfficePower, > a truly jank ICL middleware system) was to simply copy the To: and CC: list > from the original message. > OfficePower <*sigh*> I wrote an X.400 -> SMTP gateway for that once - in Perl (4) of Course. /J\ -- Jonathan Stowe | http://www.gellyfish.com | I'm with Grep on this one http://www.tackleway.co.uk |
Re: Stupid Email
On Jan 24, 11:07am, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > The line I heard was "they decided to line up all the inept middle > managers at ICL up aganst a wall but they couldn't find a wll long > enough..." That's frighteningly close to being true. I worked at ICL Bracknell 01, the large building you see coming into Bracknell from the A322. On the bottom floor we had the humungous machine hall which accounted for about 2/3rds of the floor space. There were offices surrounding it. People did work here. The machine room was 2 floors high so the first floor had only the offices around the edge and a gallery looking down onto the tops of all the boxes in the machine room. People did work here. The 3rd floor was for sales and marketing suits. They did what they would claim was "work" here. There were a few small groups of people on the 5th floor who also did some real "work". But apart from them, the upper 8 floors of the building were all management. Managers progressed up the company and up the building. In the late eighties, ICL was bleeding money and got bought out by Fujitsu, presumably at a knock-down rate. They kept the top floor and the bottom 3 floors and kicked the rest out. The people that is, not the actual floors themselves. Unfortunately, the few people who did survive the culling were generally the really useless twats who spent their time colouring their noses the right shade of brown and making sure that they weren't the first ones up against the wall when the revolution came. Such is the way. Nevertheless, I was amused that I went from being 13 layers of management separation away from Peter Bonfield, the man at the top, to only 4 away. But he still didn't answer my calls or accept the invitation for a beer after work. :-( A -- Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signature regenerating. Please remain seated. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/
Re: Stupid Email
Michael Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 11:32:58AM +, Andy Wardley wrote: > > There was a moral in this story but I forgot it in the process of > > rambling on. Probably something about munging Reply-To, or putting > > all middle management up against a wall and shooting them (which ICL > > did a short while later). > > Was this simple yet violent process found to be of benefit to the > company? The line I heard was "they decided to line up all the inept middle managers at ICL up aganst a wall but they couldn't find a wll long enough..." -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Apache, mod_perl, MySQL, Sybase hired gun for, well, hire -
Re: Stupid Email
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 11:32:58AM +, Andy Wardley wrote: > There was a moral in this story but I forgot it in the process of > rambling on. Probably something about munging Reply-To, or putting > all middle management up against a wall and shooting them (which ICL > did a short while later). Was this simple yet violent process found to be of benefit to the company? michael
