Is "Campaign for Liberty" SPAM?Submitted by wistfulthinker on Thu, 08/29/2013 - 19:12
I'm fed up with Campaign for Liberty's email communications.
My server's new spam software has been quarantining Campaign for Liberty emails for months, but I've dutifully had them passed on to my inbox and at least skimmed most of them. I've never been impressed, but I'm starting to be offended.
This latest one declared in the subject line that "Dr. Paul needs your advice." It used the abbreviation C4L over and over, not even identifying on the first use, a writing 101 skill. It went on for 1,900 words -- the size of most full-bodied magazine articles. It was repetitive and insulting. I reminded me of the Amway salesmen I've had the misfortune to meet.
I clicked through just to see how the dismal story would end, and...sure enough, the big advice Dr. Paul needed from me was whether to chose Audit the Fed, civil liberties, or targeting the 2014 elections. Oh, wait, also, all of the above. After making my choice, I got a big donate come-on.
The whole spiel was a ruse to try to get money.
These "C4L" emails and letters are sticking in my craw. Whoever is doing these (in this case David Warrington and John Tate are a disgrace. I'd love to be on the email list of a real Campaign for Liberty and do what I could when I could, and be treated as a person with a brain. Not as some desperate Amway-sucker.
Who is running this show? Why are they such imbeciles?
I remember several months ago, reading about how Doug Weed was getting into some multi-level marketing scheme. I'm just wondering why such sub-standard intellects rise so far in the Ron Paul movement.
I'm wondering if there's something that can be done about it. I intend to respond to the latest "C4L" email with a lengthy edit, but it will only be for myself, as I'm sure none of the Amway-style-writers at C4L even read, let alone could question their approach. It is quite clear that whoever writes that drivel isn't thinking about his partner (the reader) but only masturbating with words.
It really makes me question the sort of people who are drawn to Ron Paul. It makes me question Paul's discernment when it comes to those around him.
I'm disgusted with "C4L." Please, someone tell me that Ron Paul isn't involved with it and that his name has been, once again, shanghaied.
After getting past my irritation and reading everyone's thoughts, I replied to the latest C4L with the following suggestions:
Dear Authors of C4L Communications:
The way you are communicating with me is highly ineffective. I rarely open a letter or click on an email anymore. This particular letter was almost 1,900 words, contained six repetitive clickable images, and was written in the style of a used-car salesman.
I will just point out a few of the most egregious bits on the off chance you are seeking feedback that would lead to more effective outreach.
1. I’m offended by the early and oft used word “statist.” The word adds no meaning — the “statist IRS” is like saying the “male boy” — and is needlessly pejorative. You name call in the first sentence, which risks giving readers a cringe moment. Several IRS branches have done a terrible thing; you don’t need to name call to make this more true. And, when you do, it gives the impression you don’t believe the facts are egregious enough.
2. Over reaching makes your words suspect and diminishes credibility. The IRS’s goal is obviously not to shut down C4L. It’s to collect taxes. The fact that several agents and administrators have targeted conservative groups, does not make that the IRS’s goal. Look at this breathless, credibility-killing language permeating this correspondence.
“…goal remains to shut up and shut down organizations like C4L who dare to criticize radical assaults on our freedom…”
“…facing decisions right now unlike any other I've ever had to make.
”…GUT every last shred of American liberty… more afraid… than ever.
”…your advice is absolutely essential.”
“…I can't think of anything worse.”
”…absolutely vital…critical reform…do battle…”
”…loss of every last shred…”
I’m sure you get the idea. This barrage of excessive language has a little-boy-who-cried-wolf quality that causes degrades you. And frankly, the reader begins to feel degraded by his/her association with you. Credibility, matters. I beg you to re-think the use-car/Amway salesmen tone.
3. The ruse. It becomes apparent that this “Dr. Paul Needs Your Advice” come-on is a ruse. If it were, in fact true, that C4L is fearful of being an IRS target and that having members fill out a directive would help guard against an assult, it follows that you wouldn’t tell members how to vote.
Right? Because if the above were true, telling them how their beloved Dr. Paul wants them to vote would taint directives to the point of being without value.
Ah, but when one takes in all the breathy, salesman language, sees the scaling of issues, and then…the big one — Dr. Paul wants (actually prays) I pick them all. Hurrah! Yes, I pick them all!
But…always the but, and always the truth must come out. Money. It’s all just a lure to disguise the hook — give us money. I don’t consider giving money to something I believe in a hook; I don’t need a lure. And I’ll get all rebellious if I feel you’re playing me. Like I do again and again with your correspondence.
5. Repetitive — 1,900 words. Come on. I could cut that down to 600 and lose nothing that matters (and a lot that turns people off). Please take the time to value our time by making every word count.
6. On the first use of a “C4L,” you must write it out. Like this: Campaign For Liberty (C4L).
I would, of course, be willing to edit/comment on any future communications from C4L before they go out.