Well, Sarah, I missed this thread on Friday. I see that the gang has really been giving you the treatment. This is an extremely tough audience and with very good reason: FR is heavily infiltrated with trolls and obots which makes us constitutionalists a bit gunshy about newbies. I had to prove myself a while back because I lurked for so long. So what is happening to you is not unusual. If you are a troll, it will be made clear soon enough. In the meantime, if you want to be taken seriously, I can only suggest that you avoid DU terms like “birther,” “truther,” “Obama derangement syndrome” as well as the terms that Polarik advised you about (”wingnut,” “tinfoil hat”) and stay away from vanities for awhile. They are not much appreciated and arouse suspicion. Also, if you are not a troll, you should avoid feeding trolls. I think you’ve already picked up on who they are: the ones who think that the Constitution should define NBC, who expect us to prove a negative about Obama’s eligibility while giving him a pass as though he is some precious flower which needs to be protected. They ooze illogic and try to insult the intelligence of constitutionalists every time an eligibility thread appears. In fact, they show up on these threads with supersonic speed every single time one is posted. The best thing to do is to simply ignore them and to not respond to them if they contact you. Oh, yes—try to use good spelling and grammar. Constitutionalists tend to appreciate that. If you are a sincere lover of the Constitution, I wish you well here!
Thank you so much! That was a great summary and good advice too. I especially agree with the part about illogical requests to prove a negative. It’s good to find someone with a similar way of thinking who understands the of the rules of logic.
I do love the Constitution and I am confident that others will believe that after I have been here for awhile.