First!

I had an uncle that sent me that crap. I finally snapped when he sent me one about how the Koran had "Prophecied" 9/11. I found it on Snopes, and copied an pasted and sent it to him with a subject line that said "Check you facts, first, please." Now the only things he sends me are family reunion news, so I consider that a success.

(Reply) (Thread)

I had to do that to one of my uncles. He was constantly forwarding these urban legends to everyone in his address book, always shit it took me about 0.2 seconds to debunk through Google. I'd reply saying it wasn't true, with a link to Snopes, but he still sent them. Eventually I decided to step it up, so I started Reply-all'ing the Snopes link. It got to the point where when he sent something, I wouldn't even have to do it, someone else would, and we'd have awesome conversations.

Needless to say, he doesn't send them to me anymore.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"Reply all" was the way I finally got my mom to stop sending that stuff, too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You are lucky. I get 'Snopes could be wrong'. ARGH.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

They're not wrong, they're in on it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Generally unlikely. They do the research and they show their work. Right on the page, there it is: what they used to come to the conclusion that that stuff from that email is false.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Their logic is that anyone can put words up on the internet. Relatedly, I'm still having a hard time convincing the family that Wikipedia has some value; I use it as a starting point.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Ouch. It hurts me to read that "logic".

Particularly as Snopes uses the method lots of Americans were taught in high school for showing their work: footnotes & bibliography (which your people could actually verify themselves if they really wanted proof that the information is accurate, but that would mean they'd have to risk discovering their prized points of view are -- *gasp* erroneous at best and wrong at worst)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I do with the media wasn't so obsessed with blood and violence. I bet their ratings would go up if they reported a few more good feelings stories.

(Reply) (Thread)

If that were true, they'd already be doing it. The media has gradually shifted to the violent and sensationalist news of today because that's what sells.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Same thing goes for Hollywood gossip with the added bonus that it is dirt cheap to cover.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

One of these days, some dude is just going to open up on the papparazzi with a machine gun.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Connecting the two sides sounds like an awesome idea. Presuming you're willing to alienate them from you, which, given what they are sending, does not sound like a downside.

I may have to stealborrow the phrase "regrettable relatives".

(Reply) (Thread)

When we were about to be married, I promised " I'll ignore yours, if you ignore mine". Worked pretty well.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

They're both right, though I would side with the latter group. War is ugly and spinning it any other way is inhumane. Destruction gets more attention than celebration because it's more permanent. There's a big difference between the two pictures that are painted, but the one that's real is bigger than both.

(Reply) (Thread)

Would it be so wrong to report some good war-related news? New clinics built, kids getting vaccinated, women able to go to school?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

LOL -- awesome idea.

(Reply) (Thread)

You know... maybe you should just reply to them with "I've got it! Let's send Tiger Woods to Iraq! Then that's ALL the media will report on!"

Sorry, having my own "oh please shut up now John Q. Public" moment.

Definitely forward the glurge - perhaps it will have the same effect as introducing matter to anti-matter. One can hope anyways.

(Reply) (Thread)

My aunt does this. It like getting spam from somebody you actually know, which makes it even more distressing.

(Reply) (Thread)

Agreed. I hate these. a) it's not simple. b) the media can't really show 100 of what's going on. they show what people care about. When war sentiment is high they show one thing and when it's low they show something else.

(Reply) (Thread)

What I hate worse are panicked emails about how the president is a secret muslim (as absurd an idea as there ever was) or that I shouldn't microwave things near my christmas tree or I'll get cancer of the penis. It's like everyone in my family is a huge sucker who has never heard of lying before (and I know that's not true, because my uncle is a criminal defense attorney, so I'd wager to guess that the word has come up before).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

One of my regrettable relatives is like that. She'll 100% believe everything she gets in a chain email or sees on some fluff news story, and will steadfastly refuse to believe anything that I or my sig other say about the matter.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It's one thing to believe the microwave is going to dry out your sperm [1] but for crying out loud, Obama is the most famous, well-known man on the planet. The Russian government knows who he sat next to in third grade and every single time he went to the hospital.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I think I just fell in love a little.

(Reply) (Thread)

After 4:15. Out cleaning off car. Love Ya!

(Reply) (Thread)

I wouldn't mind chain emails quite so much if the person sending it to me deleted the fifteen pages of email addresses in the text already. WT Holy F.

(Reply) (Thread)