Requiring people to use their real names would be a great change.  Right now the Internet is the domain of cowards.

“On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”

TURNING 20: The most reproduced New Yorker cartoon in the magazine’s history. (by PETER STEINER – The New Yorker magazine (1993))

A friend, who is a really nice fellow, sends me a pretty regular barrage of things we are supposed to pass on to others.  They all claim to be of top priority, and reasons why, we should be very concerned, about the current topic.  So because I like this man I try to verify what he sends me.  And most of the time that is not possible.  

Today’s email had to do with the lack of transparency on funding to first nations.  I too think Justin Trudeau is wrong to just funnel millions of dollars into the hands of people who show little wisdom in the use of money extracted from the general public. So I wrote to my friend, (again) to caution him against joining that invisible army of purveyors of junk emails, because, again, there was no link to the original.  So far that hasn’t seemed to stop his enthusiastic forwarding of dubious articles.  

I’ll post this on my blog, in hopes of encouraging someone out there to check out the facts of a matter, before obeying those urgent messages that claim to be true, and that must be passed on,…… if we don’t want our world to disintegrate tomorrow.


HI (Name)   ——-  August 15, 2017


For these articles to have any merit, they must be traceable back to the original source.  Most of the emails that swirl endlessly around the Internet, like this one, will say something vague about the source, but for some mysterious reason the senders almost never provide a link.   Why not?  


What would be so hard about sending the reader back to the original article?  But even if the sender is a bit computer challenged, why would you not just type in some simple data, like: ……….. the author’s name,…… the date of the article,…… and the newspaper or magazine, and the page number.


But these articles that people are encouraged to freak out about are deliberately vague about such details and blur the message with other words that perhaps are not those of the original article.


That is not only unscholarly, but misleading.  So you should not forward emails that lack transparency.  There might be a lot of truth within the article, but the overall impression is one of sneakiness and deception.