I get into trouble because of my unconventional (a.k.a retarded) way of wording things sometimes. It all began this morning, when I shot off an approval mail to Lynn at Ops regarding a new policy she was trying to put into effect, and she sent me a mail saying that she hadn't received it, and also asked me what I thought of the policy.
So, I shoot her a mail, saying that I resent it (as in "phirse bheja"). She took it as that I resent her policy (as in dislike). Here's the summary of the series of mails.
L: So what'd you think?
V: I resent it. (casual)
V: Because you asked for it. (surprised)
L: That bad, huh?
V: Ok, just cuz you got a policy approved by Legal, you don't have to start fishing for compliments. (sarcy)
L: Wow, if that's your compliment style, I would hate to get insulted by you.
V: But, I haven't even got started yet. (startled)
L: But what do you have against the policy? Does everyone in Marketing think that Ops are bottom feeders?
V: ? (confused)
L: Do you guys feel you're on top of the corporate food chain now, throwing little guppies to us, when you feel the fancy?
V: ?? (befuddled)
L: I hate this. We're the ones who do all the work. You just make the world aware of it. And ... and .... wait .... your e-mail says you approved it!
V: This is correct (totally baffled)
L: Then why did you say you resent it?
V: (moment of zen)
Sometimes, it takes one verbal typo, to start a flame session. But alas, the Marketing-Ops war continues. That's interesting. Its nice to see the bottom feeders do some efficient work for a change, even if its anti-establishment. Muhahahaha.
In other news, Jill Carroll's story is an exceptional one.