I have a colleague who uses "reply all" e-mails to publicly air his grievances with our dean, and I have a dean with too thin of skin to not "reply all" his answers. So for several years, now, the entire college has been witness to some awkward e-mail disputes.
Yesterday, this flared up again. The dean has had some unsubstantiated accusations made against him, so we brought in an outside investigator, whose final report found that the accusations were unsubstantiated. The colleague asked for distribution of the final report instead of just a summary of the findings. The dean answered, "I know you have the report because you filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it." The colleague answered, "So can I share the report?" The dean said he doesn't have the authority to authorize that.
Then, a new twist: a different colleague used "reply all" to tell the first colleague to not include her on future e-mails about this issue.
Is this the height of irony? Or next-level trolling? Or rank hypocrisy? If I had more job security and/or fewer dependents, I'd "reply all" something about how "reply all" is supposed to be used.