Not offensive . . . unless the recipient’s name actually is Gertrude or Nellie. Actually, too bad you can’t actually insert each person’s individual name.
I think this gets at the core of the matter. In some way, using a name – any name – moves if from the general “here’s some information that might be helpful to you” mode to the personal level. It’s like we subconsciously identify with the addressee instead of just processing the message. If you can say Nellie or Jethro is behind the times/stupid/whatever is being made fun of, you could make digs at me, too. 
Just the facts, please. 
Not nearly as offensive as, say, using “impact” as a verb. 
So using a name as discussed impacts less than verbing a noun? 
Hardy Har Har.
mmm
Yeah, it’s a sneer.
A city worker writes a chatty newsletter every month, which is sent out with the utility bills. Below the title she includes “News you should, or just might, want to know”. Besides being clumsy and unnecessary, I think it’s patronizing, but I haven’t been able to figure out how to explain to her why I think it sounds that way.
No matter how nice she thinks she is being here, she is specifically and literally telling people what they should want to know. I don’t need her – or anyone else – to tell me what I should want to know. It’s presumptuous, bossy, and condescending. She can believe all she wants that it’s just fun, friendly, and lighthearted, but it still comes across as presumptuous, bossy, and condescending.
Not offensive but unnecessarily snarky. Like QtM said, I’d probably toss your message and subscription after that, just because it strikes me as unprofessional. Who needs that aggro?
I really don’t think I’d take it that way myself. To me it just sounds like she’s bigging up the newsletter a little bit, and advertising is always effectively telling you what you “should” think or do.
Put another tick in the, “It’s not offensive, but also not a great idea,” column.
I don’t find it offensive but I can think of several people who would, especially if you insert their name right in the article. Clever, but I would steer away from it. Rather, I suggest:
“Hey [name], guess what? This is the first totally electronic issue of our newsletter. Yep. I, the editor, have finally arrived in the twenty-first century!”
That way, you are giving them the news but polking fun at yourself, not your audience.
It took me a while to learn that many people have absolutely no sense of humor. And of those people who do have a sense of humor, many of them do not enjoy humor of the sarcastic variety. So, while I think there is nothing offensive about your message at all, I would agree that it’s probably in your best interest to rewrite it.
Not offensive but a little insulting.
It’s not offensive at all.
Unprofessional?
Yes.
Disrespectful?
Completely.
Would I send something like that?
Never.
I think the problem is that the subset of people who will actually be wondering “Where is my paper copy?” are very likely the same people who would find that offensive.
I voted not offensive but, upon further consideration, I’m going to change my vote.
At first, I thought the was a company newsletter for internal purposes. As such, sure. Go ahead and be funny and fuck 'em if they can’t take a joke.
But this is going to your customers, right? I, personally, wouldn’t find what you said offensive to me. But I’d find it grating that you’re trying to purposely offend your customer base.
Like was said above, it’s not me that’s entering the 21st century. It’s you.
Youre representing a business I believe and your remark may be interpreted via a sarchasm, rather then a sarcasm.
I would ask what the history of the paper is in context of humor directed at the general populace. I understand what youre saying, but that doesnt mean they will appreciate what you say
This - “offensive” isn’t exactly the word I’d use, since I would not take personal offense at it being the paperless sort in every way possible, but LHoD captures my sense of the tone perfectly: you’re mocking me, the reader, for an imagined viewpoint. It’s clear from the context that it’s intended to be a fictional third person being addressed in the second person, so it gets ratcheted down from “insulting” to “obnoxious”.
If you wanted to be obnoxious without being as insulting, you could turn it around into a more self-deprecating parody than one directed at the reader.
*NOTE: I was all set to send this newsletter both electronically and via its usual paper distribution, when something that looked like a giant green recycling bin with wheels and tentacles rolled in and hauled off all the paper. It threatened me with a bamboo stapler and threw an Earth Day t-shirt at me, which was sized too small. I don’t want it to come back again, so this and all subsequent newsletters will be distributed electronically only.
*
Offensive - in that it is confrontational and patronizing and unprofessional.
In a business setting it would be better to extol the virtues of modernizing and “green” advancement by publishing an online newsletter, and do it in a positive way. There is no need to assume that anyone would reject the change.
Is this a free newsletter to company employees? How about something like this instead?
Q: What happened to the paper newsletter?
A: As many businesses are discovering, paper publications are both hard on the environment and expensive. In the spirit of being “green” and saving the company money, we are changing the newsletter to electronic format only. You will receive the newsletter in your e-mail automatically, or you can visit (site) for complete archives of this and future issues.