Reply #10: I think that by including sources

[EarlG]

people might be more likely to think of the email as an academic document, which could be an immediate turn-off. I believe it would be more effective if it came across as conversational, with a sort of friendly-but-concerned tone. I think it's more likely to be read and forwarded if stikes an emotional chord, and sources might spoil that effect.

I want to make sure that we know all the facts are true and verified before it goes out. That way if someone receives the email, reads an item and thinks "that can't possibly be true," they can, if they want, choose to take a more active role and Google it. This makes them more involved in the process, so when they get their Google results and discover that it IS true, maybe it will have more of an impact on them. I don't know if this would be the case or not, it's just a thought.