I pit the "F.Y.I. Obama" email and provide a rebuttal - Please send it around

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Marley23]
Everybody here knows that. He’s talking about the tone you employed, which is somewhat off-putting. You can be right and still deliver your message the wrong way.
[/quote]
Hypothetically, sure, but I seriously don’t believe that’s happening here. Did you note that I had already said by the time you posted this that I had planned to seriously cut back on the angry characterizations and likely much of the punctuation?

[QUOTE=Marley23]
If you’re going to ask for responses and then react to them like this, why bother asking for the responses?
[/quote]
First of all, “react to them” like what? You mean politely suggesting that I’ll likely not apply a particular poster’s suggestions, something I say with gentle honesty if I find a poster’s comments not quite appropriate to how I, myself, understand my goals?

What would you have me do? Immediately apply every single poster’s instructions to revise? What about those who have instructed or “advised” me to kill it altogether and not to bother at all? Should I take that advice, too?

Or would you have me humor and lie to them, promising to apply their suggestions but then never actually do so?

I simply cannot understand all the carping. I didn’t ask for posters to rip the living shit out of it, and I didn’t even ask for any criticism in the first place! I posted it here in the it for the following, simple reasons:

(1) Because I wanted to Pit the original email’s author and the email itself,

(2) Because I wanted to rebut the scurrilous lies,

(3) Because people who are more likely to be angry over a thing like this are more inclined to visit the Pit,

(4) Because I wanted to perform a small public service of preparing an accurate rebuttal so that others – whether they give a shit about Obama or not – can choose IF THEY WISH to easily forward the URL of the OP and get the word out.

What fault do you find with my reasoning?

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Duck Duck Goose]
The trouble with your attempted rebuttal is…
[/quote]
Please see: An elaboration of my goals in posting my OP

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
ambushed writes:

> Sigh. That’s just another ugly, vicious, mud-slinging lie! Obama was NEVER a
> Muslim! He was ALWAYS a devout Christian! While it is true that Obama’s
> FATHER was raised as a Muslim, his FATHER had openly ended all his ties with
> Islam and openly became an agnostic by the time he married Obama’s mother
> (i.e., long before Barack Obama was born!)

This isn’t quite accurate. Barack Obama’s father was an atheist by the time he was married. He could hardly have had any effect on Obama’s faith, since he and Obama’s mother were divorced when Obama was two years old, and he seldom saw Obama after that. Obama’s mother simply wasn’t religious (although she might have been raised as a Christian), and she didn’t raise Obama as anything. Obama’s stepfather was raised Moslem, but he very seldom went to mosque, and he didn’t raise Obama as anything either. Obama was thus not always a devout Christian. He was simply non-religious as a child. He was out of college before he became a Christian. Of course, it could be argued that this makes Obama’s faith more likely to be genuine than any of a number of other Presidential candidates who grew up in a particular church and never left it. In any case, it’s still true that Obama was never Moslem in any sense.
[/QUOTE]
An excellent, very helpful reply. Thank you so very much for you kind assist!

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Chefguy]
Since you asked for suggestions, here you go: Discussions don’t have exclamation points, tirades do. Get rid of them, or risk sounding like a nutjob or, at the least, an hysteric. Get rid of opinion and deal in fact, or you leave yourself open to attack (hey, that almost rhymes!). . .ahem. . .be careful who you label as racist; a general comment as to something being racist may imply that you think the person who sent it to you is a racist, when they may just be ignorant.
[/QUOTE]

Please see: An elaboration of my goals in posting my OP

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Speaking as a poster now, I have to say that the proposed email in the OP is simply terrible. It’s way too long, and the fact that you actually argue each crazy point gives it far more validity than if you had simply responded to the email with something like Marley23’s “almost NONE of this is true” and a Snopes link.
[/QUOTE]
Please see: An elaboration of my goals in posting my OP

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I find it to be a very unreasonable hypothesis, albeit one that is often heard from the left side of the political spectrum, one that most lefties just don’t seem to realize is very offensive and condescending. Thank you, ambushed the magnificent, for tirelessly and unselfishly bearing the onerous liberal man’s burden of educating us lowly rubes in the flyover states from our blissful fog of utter ignorance.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, my, have I done all that? Golly!

NOW GO FUCK YOURSELF REPEATEDLY WITH A BROKEN “FLYOVER STATE” COORS BOTTLE

Thank you.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
In addition to the other criticisms given, I recommend laying off redundant pairings like this one. It doesn’t give you a tone of authority, just makes you look like a desperate wackjob who has to lay it on the thick to get his point across.
[/QUOTE]
Please see: An elaboration of my goals in posting my OP

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Nah, you need to be more subtle. “Soft on Terror” is the way to get that message across.

Ambushed: Given the response you’re getting here, and the response to your GD thread about ID, maybe you should consider lowering the volume a few decibels in order to better communicate your desired audience.
[/QUOTE]
A fine suggestion, which I will take to heart, as I’ve already indicated earlier. You may have missed my posts early on in which I’ve already stated that I will do so.

And as for the howling, vicious, ugly cretins who can’t take a joke over in the GD Letter to the Editor satire about ID, and who’ve been being so moronically “droll” and abusing me for nothing more serious than a fun little lark of a letter to the god-damned editorial page of a small city in the Midwest?

I have a few things to say about that:

(1) The attackers are unbelievably childish and juvenile and lack any adult sense of humor – though they pretend to have one far superior to everyone else’s, and I feel the style is fairly reminiscent of the Onion,

(2) On those attack responses, I’m inclined to the level of cynicism I’ve seen around here; i.e, who the fuck cares what they think? I didn’t post in in GD for a debate on humor for Bob’s sake! I posted it there to see if some Creationist took exception and wanted to argue with me!

(3) After two exceptional biological scientists, known for their own exceptional wit – one of them the famed Stanford microbiology and ecology professor and expert on Book of Mormon authorship, Dr. Craig Criddle, who has written a well-known humorous yet accurate book on chemistry – say things including:

Jonathan Swift would rise and applaud your excellent satire, if not for repeatedly banging his noggin on the lid of his coffin when trying to do so.

… I really can’t imagine that any criticism is justified in the least!

They’re just being juvenile, petty, assholes. Let ‘em have their fun at my expense. Unless I melt from their oh so witty, ever-so-valid and well-informed brainpiss, I think I’ll stand with those respected scientists’ opinions…

[Marley23]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
First of all, “react to them” like what? You mean politely suggesting that I’ll likely not apply a particular poster’s suggestions, something I say with gentle honesty if I find a poster’s comments not quite appropriate to how I, myself, understand my goals?
[/quote]

You’ve been huffy throughout this thread because of your Lofty Goals - rebutting an e-mail most people probably read, delete and forget about - and this is no exception.

What would you have me do? Immediately apply every single poster’s instructions to revise?

Get off the cross. I should have expected this kind of quixotic silliness from somebody who thinks creating a rebuttal chain-letter will work.

What about those who have instructed or “advised” me to kill it altogether and not to bother at all? Should I take that advice, too?

Probably. You’re wasting your own time. I admire your goals, really. But you’d get more done by talking to a couple of people one-on-one. Somebody gullible enough to believe this stuff in an e-mail forward is not likely to be unconvinced by another forward - my view is that people who fall for this thing have a lingering discomfort with Obama that an e-mail won’t fix. They were looking for an excuse not to vote for him and this e-mail gave it to them.

I simply cannot understand all the carping. I didn’t ask for posters to rip the living shit out of it, and I didn’t even ask for any criticism in the first place!

You’re not exactly new here. What did you expect?

[Genghis_Bob]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
. . . After two exceptional biological scientists, known for their own exceptional wit – one of them the famed Stanford microbiology and ecology professor and expert on Book of Mormon authorship, Dr. Craig Criddle, who has written a well-known humorous yet accurate book on chemistry – say things including: [Genghis Bob’s paraphrase: “you write good!”] … I really can’t imagine that any criticism is justified in the least! . . .
[/QUOTE]

Wow . . . so two *biologists * approve of the level of sarcasm in your letter to the editor, and the rest of us should back off? Gotta say, man, as a published writer of numerous letters to the editor, including but not limited to the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, the *Royal Oak Tribune * and the world-renowned Mirror of Berkley and Huntington Woods, I think I have as much right to an opinion on your screeds as some egghead in a lab.

So get over yourself, already. You’ve got no business posting stuff on the SDMB if you don’t expect someone to comment on it. Folks in the GD thread were pretty level-headed in their responses to you, with a fairly universal message: “it’s too much, it’ll miss the mark.”

Accept it as a learning opportunity and move on.

[Chefguy]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
Please see: An elaboration of my goals in posting my OP
[/QUOTE]

Friendly advice hereby retracted. By all means, go right on ahead and send that piece of unadulterated horseshit to everyone you can think of so they can confirm the suspicion that you’re a raving fucking looney.

[Weirddave]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
Oh, my, have I done all that? Golly!
[/quote]

Yes you have.

[QUOTE=ambushed]

NOW GO FUCK YOURSELF REPEATEDLY WITH A BROKEN “FLYOVER STATE” COORS BOTTLE

Thank you.
[/QUOTE]

What a brilliant, reasoned response. Don’t blame me for your arrogance and condescensions. Please, by all means, send out your reply to anyone you like. I am sure it will have exactly the effect you envision. Imagine just how grateful and enlightened all those ignorant people will be when they are the fortunate beneficiaries of your benevolent wisdom!

[Marley23]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Imagine just how grateful and enlightened all those ignorant people will be when they are the fortunate beneficiaries of your benevolent wisdom!
[/QUOTE]

I feel more enlightened already, having learned that Maryland is a flyover state!

[Weirddave]

[QUOTE=Marley23]
I feel more enlightened already, having learned that Maryland is a flyover state!
[/QUOTE]

Depends where you’re going I guess. Believe it or not, I though about that when writing my response, and decided that strict, 100% accuracy was not required in sarcasm.

[Bites_When_Provoked]

@ambushed

@Marley23

@ambushed

[QUOTE=Bites When Provoked]
While I applaud your intent, it’s a bit of a ‘Is!’ ‘Isn’t!’ kind of email.

I appreciate what you’re saying, but you’re coming across almost as hysterical as the original message. A more restrained tone in your response would gather more respect (IMO).

Oh, I can’t agree with that at all! Your remark suggests that there are two roughly equal sides to the story, which is complete and total nonsense. There’s the lies, distortions, and vicious personal attacks on one side, and the full and complete truth and facts on the other.

Everybody here knows that. She’s* talking about the tone you employed, which is somewhat off-putting. You can be right and still deliver your message the wrong way.

Hypothetically, sure, but I seriously don’t believe that’s happening here.
[/QUOTE]

As the person **Marley23 **was talking about, I have three things to say:

1. Marley23 is absolutely correct in his interpretation of my apparently too-tactful statement.

2. ambushed, there’s no ‘hypothetically’ about it. If you need it spelled out clearer, try this one on for size:

Your original letter sucked. It added little of consequence, and basically just answered opinion with opinion. It’s great you care, but you were debating your point at a level that’s more appropriate for a pre-teen girl (!!!omg1!!) than a level-headed adult.

3. ‘She’, not ‘he’.
   I hope this clears up any confusion.
   ** minor alteration to Marley23’s post to correct my gender.*

[Marley23]

[QUOTE=Bites When Provoked]
3. ‘She’, not ‘he’.
[/QUOTE]

Please accept my apologies. Or, if you don’t accept my apologies, HOW DARE YOU? ARE MY APOLOGIES SUDDENLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?

[ambushed]

To those of you who offered constructive criticism to help improve my rebuttal letter, my warm thanks for your help.

To the others, I thank you for your significant waste of SDMB resources, which, considering the tragic way things here at this board have been going (and moderated) for quite some time now, can only be a good thing. The situation and low ethical standards here at the Straight Dope are to be deplored, in my opinion (a view I am not here to debate, at least at this time and in this thread).

Here is the finished product for those who may be interested. My revision includes most of the suggested constructive criticism offered here and elsewhere, for which I again express my genuine gratitude.

I am now departing this thread.

[Marley23]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
I am now departing this thread.
[/QUOTE]

So had everybody else. :rolleyes:

[Q.E.D]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
I am now departing this thread.
[/QUOTE]

Jebus, what a weenie.

[Wendell_Wagner]

I’m sorry, ambushed, but you’ve still got facts wrong. Barack Obama was not always a Christian. His father was an atheist who had been raised as a Moslem. His stepfather was a nominal Moslem who hardly ever went to mosque. His mother had been raised in no religious tradition and her parents were simply nonreligious. His mother was actually interested in religion and sometimes brought Obama to religious ceremonies of many different groups, but she never became an adherent of any religion. Obama spent the first six years of his life in Hawaii, then four years in Indonesia, then the rest of his childhood in Hawaii again. The most important people in his childhood were his mother and her parents, and they didn’t raise him in any religious tradition. Neither his father nor his stepfather had any real effect on his religious beliefs. In Indonesia he mostly attended a Catholic school and in Hawaii he attended a private nonsectarian school, but they didn’t have much effect on his religious beliefs either.

It wasn’t until Obama was in his twenties when he was working in Chicago on voting rights campaigns that he had any significant contact with Christian churches. The churches he worked with, which were in general mostly black, impressed him with their faith. It was at that point that he became a Christian and was baptised into the Church of Christ. The church he attends is mostly but not entirely black. This is hardly surprising since the fact is that nearly all Christian churches in the U.S. are nearly all either white or black at the individual congregational level. It’s too bad that this is true, but it’s not Obama’s fault. In any case, unlike all the other candidates in this presidential race, Obama made a choice as an adult to become a Christian. He wasn’t brought up in a Christian church like the other candidates.