By Harold E…
The forwarding of emails without some research is contributing to a credibility factor of the sender as well as the subject. People will read an email from someone and agree with content without any research and send it off to others who in turn repeat the process.
Eventually someone will research the facts, and delete the email which has actually given more dubious credibility to the subject enclosed, and just caused proponents to use any information as reported on the subject by the email in effort to disguise the truth and factual information on the subject.
If your research proves it to be a spoof or convoluted then consider returning it to your original sender with a link to the facts as you find them, and a even polite note stating this was what you found and thought they might like to review it and resend it to those who received the first one. I would suggest any email that seems ‘too good to be true’ or inflammatory be checked for fact. Then if its correct send it on to those you think would benefit from the article.
If nothing else people doing this meaningful act could help clear up a lot of misinformation, and some of that information I believe to be intentionally generated by the discussed subject in an attempt to confuse real facts once uncovered.
We have enough media bias, ‘TV or print with opinions’ being reported verse the story’s actual facts. Think about how many times we hear ‘this information is just coming in’ and you have to recognize than it is less then credible, but timely enough to help the broadcast ratings. Again, the end result is too many people making decisions or giving opinions based on misinformation, which obviously causes mistakes. I would encourage everyone to take some time and investigate emails prior to passing them on, All of us will still occasionally make errors but we can reduce the amount of them with a bit of effort
OK, here is a story that is not a “story”.
http://tinyurl.com/KerryCelebratesKerry
In a season where many Americans volunteer to work in soup kitchens, organize food drives, organize blanket drives and coat drives and toy drives what is the nation’s wealthiest Senator doing?
Raising money for himself.
You mean . . .
The President really didn’t spend 200 billion dollars a day on his recent trip like all those haters said he did?
I WILL be damned!!!!!
I am willing to bet that NOTHING in these emails is correct, but only sent out to infuriate little minds, and get these little minds to repost them over 200,000 times on average to their own blogs.
In that respect, they are quite effective: they sure keep the little minds busy cutting and pasting!!!
The Feeble minded, on the other hand, busy themselves making snide remarks while refusing to contribute to the conversation in any meaningful way.
Good post Harold…and good advice. It’s refreshing to find some of our readers have solutions as well as complaints!
Quentin, I haven’t heard a thing on the massive cost of that trip – have you? I’ve heard bits and pieces that seem to allude it was a total flop. Whatever Obama was trying to get or do, nobody seems to think it happened. I’m still waiting for us to get the bill. How long do you think it will take to get itall together and let us know, a few more weeks, a month, 6 months? Do you have any way of finding out because I would really like to know. And by the way it was an amount in the millions, not billions, just to keep the facts straight.
Good point PS. I would also add the MSM to that too. Especially considering the fact that 95% of the stories written by the MSM these days.
Besides the MSM is just a propaganda tool for the Democrat party. So why would anyone but Quentin and his friend Gruendl and other leftist Socialists support or believe anything they report.
Does anyone from Post Scripts ever comment in Quentin Colgan’s blog? How about Joe Shaw’s?
Just wondering.
I submitted a comment once to Quentin. He refused to post it. (It wasn’t nasty or anything like that.)
I think the title of both blogs pretty much sums up those two self aggrandizing clowns. “From outside the box” and “The Uncomfortable Truth”.
Nevertheless, I always look forward to reading Colgan’s and Shaw’s comments here. Please continue to let them be them, even if they are only trying to drum up some hits on their much ignored blogs. Pathos is the core of comedy.
ouch!
We’ve commented a few times but mostly they get censored and never posted at Quentin’s blog. I think Joe is pretty fair.
Sorry, Pie.
I have a rule that I no longer post anonymous comments.
If someone does not have the courage of their convictions, why should I give them a forum?
Can you name ANY examples?
There was the one time when Tina posted a bunch of links to a bunch of opinions that were not germane to the discussion. (I like to keep it on topic.) There was also the time when she kept reposting the same thing over and over . . .
I think you’re mistaken here–again. You seldom even read my blog. If you did, you wouldn’t make such outrageous claims about me. Like, calling me a leftist.
The reason I don’t get many comments is simple: Most people have more sense that to argue with facts! I have “Truth” in the title for a reason: I have never been proven incorrect.
Re: Sorry, Pie.
I have a rule that I no longer post anonymous comments.
If someone does not have the courage of their convictions, why should I give them a forum?
Dear Mr. Colgan,
You are, of course, free to make up any rules you like for your blog. I wasn’t asking for a forum, I was just making a comment. I see that you have rescinded that rule about anonymity. Too funny and so appropriate to the bizarre, sneering, self contradictory “out of the box” style that garnered you so many votes for city council.
Despite your sneer about cowardice, sorry, but I make it a rule to post anonymously because of possible threats of violence from angry, half-baked, unhinged, violent felons who have a history of violent behavior. (Present company excepted, I have no fear of Post Scripts of course.)
If you re-institute your rule Mr. Colgan, well too bad for you, since even comments made anonymously are still valid even if you prefer to avoid them. So it goes.
Quentin: “There was the one time when Tina posted a bunch of links to a bunch of opinions that were not germane to the discussion. (I like to keep it on topic.) There was also the time when she kept reposting the same thing over and over . . .”
These are both bald faced lies! Shame on you Quentin.
The problem Quentin has with posting links is that they back a position that point out how he is wrong.
I fear Quentin’s definitive exclamation, “I WILL be damned!!!!!”, will indeed become a self-fullfilling prophecy for his continued lies and ill-tempored rants against his fellow man.
Re Tina’s: These are both bald faced lies! Shame on you Quentin.
Why am I not surprised? It appears that lying for Quentin Colgan is a habit, or at least a symptom. And why on earth would he lie about his rule that he no longer posts anonymous comments? What the heck is the point? He recently put up my comment (after I mentioned his refusal) and has posted other anonymous comments.
To be honest, I don’t think he knows what he does or thinks from one day to the next if not one hour to the next. The only one consistency I have noticed is his endless fuming rants and insults aimed at the Tea Party.
You’re right!!!
There was also that time I missed abunch of comments due to notification problems.
Any emails you have sent me I have kept. You can show me the ones I edited or deleted.