Skip to The Dangers of Forwarded Email Attribution; re: "In God We Trust"/What's All the Fuss? Email

 

This piece was (or, depending on how you look at it, "These pieces were") inspired by the email, making the rounds at this time, entitled "'In God We Trust'/What's All the Fuss?". The email was from an article (cited in the Rumors section), and comments were "thrown in":

"In God We Trust"/What's All the Fuss?
(This opens a new browser window. Simply close to return here.)

To be totally honest, I'm a little concerned that maybe I shouldn't put these comments on this site, and checked with a trusted advisor, who replied:

Remember, I am expressing my OPINION (which I'm LEGALLY allowed to do, being a citizen of the United States of America).

The Dangers of Forwarded Email Attribution

There IS danger in passing this type of thing (the "In God We Trust"/What's All the Fuss? email) around. In my searching for information about it, I found plenty of people who didn't like the article at all (to say the least). Yes, there were those who DID like it, but ...

Of course, few people research these type of emails. And some actually try to "clean them up", but in the process, misread them and attribute them to someone who simply forwards the thing.

Now... Think about this...

Now YOU have been attributed to be the writer of the piece. It gets to someone who puts it on a blog or directly on their website, and VIOLA! (Wah-La!) Instant celebrity for you, and instant credence for the email, especially since an actual writer is listed. And, because it's on a website, many people believe it true, whether it is or not, and MANY people believe YOU wrote it.

While this MAY sound interesting, and may be fun and good for business from those who read it and like what it says, or KNOW you didn't write it, what about those who DON'T like what it says and DON'T know you didn't write it? Those who DO NOT like the email's statements, politics, wording, whatever, and believe you to be the writer may NEVER do business with you, and if they have, before, they may never do business with you AGAIN. They may even start sending you complaints, hate mail, threats, etc. While the freelance columnist and political speechwriter, Doug Patton, may be used to death threats and possible danger, I seriously doubt that an interior designer is.

Consider this... A group of (or individual) radical ANYTHING, who believe(s) YOU to be the writer, and gets it in their head(s) to "make a statement" by targeting you or your business. They could even decide to "take you out". Simply because you forwarded what they believe to be a political, racist, social commentary, or other "inflammatory" email.

[BTW: I've also received a number of emails purporting to be "jokes", some with the statement, "I just forward them". I'm not talking about dirty or simple "stereotype" jokes. I'm talking about "maliciously stereotypical" jokes. True, the "maliciousness" is my own subjective opinion, but I can't believe that people would NOT consider them such, or believe that a simple "I just forward them" statement could and would mitigate that fact. -bs]

back to top

re: "In God We Trust"/What's All the Fuss? Email

The email makes a lot of valid points. Basically, all statements in it are true.

HOWEVER, I DO care about some of it.

For example, it bothers me when American citizens, politicians and soldiers (from any part of the military) do wrong.

Is the writer kidding? This did NOT amount to a "college hazing incident". In that case, those people are enduring their humiliation because they wish to join those performing it. This APPEARS (I will NOT say that it WAS, because I don't know ALL the facts, as few people do), because of the pictures, to be for the enjoyment and titillation of those performing the humiliation. Were some people caught up in "peer pressure"? I'm sure. Were some people caught up in this because they believed they were ordered to do this? Possibly. However, the facts are

• that pictures were taken,
• in all the ones that I saw, those performing the acts were grinning from ear-to-ear,
• I only know what I've seen in the news (and, while I usually watch one local channel's news, I do check in with the national cable channels.)

Therefore, right or wrong, I find the "peer pressure" and "orders" defenses difficult to believe, and I'm sure many others do, too.

There WILL be those who "don't care" for various reasons, but I think they should. This is the way the WORLD sees the WHOLE USA;  not just those few in the pictures and not just those on the "front lines".

Does the media hold some responsibility for this? Yes, of course they do. They sensationalize everything. The smallest infraction by ANYONE can be made HUGE. (How many drunk drivers have been arrested, and uttered comments that would be considered racist or inflammatory by SOMEONE? How many have been on the news? A celebrity gets caught drunk, says things he may not believe or would never have said when sober, and all hell breaks loose. I'm not saying that what was said was right. What I'm saying is that when the media is ATTACHED to someone (celebrity, military, government) at the hip, they're going to see all the "Dirty Laundry.") And when multiple networks are involved, there's competition FOR that laundry. They tend NOT to report the GOOD or normal stuff, because they see that ALL the time. They report the BAD and odd stuff, because it's DIFFERENT from the norm. So, any MINOR action of ANY member of the government, military, Hollywood, business, etc., it's NEWS. "People want to know." Please understand, again, that I'm NOT condoning any of these actions, but there's NO REAL BALANCE between all the good stuff everyone does and the bad they appear to have done. And, every media outlet has their own take (read "slant") on anything that's reported. This is why you have to take EVERYTHING

• you READ - in ANY newspaper or magazine;
• you SEE - on TV, rabbit-ear, cable or satellite;
• you HEAR - on the radio or from the "talking heads"

written or reported by ANYBODY with a VERY healthy dose of salt - maybe even a whole shaker full.

There is also a somewhat "racist" slant to this piece that I don't agree with. Remember that many of the comments, in the original email, are about things performed by a minority of Muslims (and OTHERS). Many people don't seem to realize that Christianity and Islam are closely related. See the Wikipedia article Qur'an (also Quran or Koran) section "Similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible"), where it's stated:

According to the first section of that page,

In fact,

Since they are so closely related, why is there such discord between Muslims and Christians? It seems that most of the people making statements about Muslims or Islam are Christians, and vice-versa. To me, it seems like the difference is almost the same as between the Protestants and Roman Catholics (both of them Christian faiths) in Europe. (See information in Protestantism.)

I started the above point by saying "that many of the comments, in the original email, are about things performed by a minority of Muslims (AND OTHERS)." There is an old phrase, coined by Richard M Nixon in 1969 called the "Silent Majority". I have said for years that the media tend to cover the "Vocal Minority", meaning protestors of any type (ie: anti-war, anti-nuke, anti-blacks (KKK), anti-white, etc.), ignoring those who are managing to live "quiet and peaceful" lives, and don't believe in the same thing. Why can't people realize that Muslims probably have the same divisions, and those fighting "in the name of Islam" are THEIR "Vocal Minority".

And, isn't it possible that Al-Qaeda and others are calling this a "holy war" to try to get those of Islam, quietly trying to survive, to step over to "their side"?

Research.

back to top

by Bill Sanders © September 21, 2006 - email:
 

Send email to Bill Sanders ()
with questions or comments about this page or site.

This site, all text and graphics (unless otherwise noted) on it
were designed, developed and published by Bill Sanders of Orange Frog Productions.
It and it's CSS was validated and complies with both the: CSS and HTML 4.01 validators from W3C.
NOTE: All CSS validates except the "New Window Buttons" - Their CSS includes  some invalid code (ie: hacks)
and warnings for using transparent backgrounds when color foregrounds defined.
Copyright © 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by Bill Sanders / Full site last modified: July 10, 2006