The sender there have more power over the result of the exchange, and respondent have a kind of passive role of reacting to the initial stimulus. The common courtesy is one thing known to almost everyone who cares but the sender's passive-agressiveness is hidden from their sight, as is the desire to pressure respondent for some kind of results. The respondents in a calm and charitable state of mind wouldn't normally overreact as much so they are either overworked or anxious which increases the threshold of picking the bad in seemingly common stuff.
It's impossible to change other random people nor alleviate their anxieties or tiredness. So it's on the sender to avoid that which I implied in the TS comment, which in itself is based on the article's examples.
If you read some of the emails that were offensive, it’s understandable why the sender thought they were ok.
I think the problem is that formal is taken for intimidating, and that’s not OK for us to go down that road as a society. This email, for example:
> We acknowledge that our request has a very short timeline and certainly appreciate that you are very busy.
That seems like a very courteous and respectful way to open or close an email to someone when you actually are under pressure and need a response despite the circumstances. I can see why/how the recipient could have been rankled to receive this email, but it’s only passive aggressive if you are expecting it to be, are overly sensitive, or have self esteem issues.
The thing is, sometimes people are in a crunch and do need something from you. That’s not ideal, but it shouldn’t be considered actually outright hostile. IMHO it’s important that it be OK to convey a sense of urgency if you couch your statements with respect and understanding.
