Snopes.com is a Scam

[EastFacingNorth]

[Thor]

Thanks for the laugh today. I needed one......

 

[Chris_]

FANTASTIC!!!! (LOL)

[allenteri]

The first 2 sentences of the starting email's paragraph 2 read: 

"But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com.  Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding."

My very hasty look at the internet led me to an article identifying the people "behind snopes.com" dated 2001  (Google: salon.com mieszkowski mikkelson debunk) and another from 2004 (Google: snopes.com the ultimate debunker). So the part about trying for years to find out who's behind snopes.com is ridiculous and it was my first clue that the email was written by a crackpot.

This following sentence from the starting email leads me to believe hat the whole purpose of the writing was political:

"Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic
(party) and extremely liberal."

What an absurd sentence if you have no proof.Back it up! Who learned it? How did they learn it? What proof is there? Could it have been the omnipresent "THEY" who found out? The always unidentified "THEY" who are used to prove things?

The elections over so forget it. McCain lost and it's doubtful snopes.com had much to do with it.

[Randy]

The first 2 sentences of the starting email's paragraph 2 read: 

"But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com.  Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding."

My very hasty look at the internet led me to an article identifying the people "behind snopes.com" dated 2001  (Google: salon.com mieszkowski mikkelson debunk) and another from 2004 (Google: snopes.com the ultimate debunker). So the part about trying for years to find out who's behind snopes.com is ridiculous and it was my first clue that the email was written by a crackpot.

This following sentence from the starting email leads me to believe hat the whole purpose of the writing was political:

"Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic
(party) and extremely liberal."

What an absurd sentence if you have no proof.Back it up! Who learned it? How did they learn it? What proof is there? Could it have been the omnipresent "THEY" who found out? The always unidentified "THEY" who are used to prove things?

The elections over so forget it. McCain lost and it's doubtful snopes.com had much to do with it.

WOW you're quite the detective. You're and editor on Wiki ain'tcha?

[allenteri]

Quote from RANDY: "WOW you're quite the detective. You're and editor on Wiki ain'tcha?"

No, Randy. I "ain't" an editor. Just trying to add my thoughts. I laughed and laughed at your 2nd grade wit, though. You're quite the comedian, "ain'tcha"?

[Randy]

Noting your quoting abilities, I can see your extreme intelligence screaming through. Quit looking at my wits. You're making me uncomfortable with your leering.

[TheSarge]

Noting your quoting abilities, I can see your extreme intelligence screaming through. Quit looking at my wits. You're making me uncomfortable with your leering.

Why is it that the DUmmies who come here always have trouble with the quote feature.

They had the same deficiency at TOS as well.

[TheSarge]

This following sentence from the starting email leads me to believe hat the whole purpose of the writing was political:

"Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic
(party) and extremely liberal."

What an absurd sentence if you have no proof.Back it up! Who learned it? How did they learn it? What proof is there? Could it have been the omnipresent "THEY" who found out? The always unidentified "THEY" who are used to prove things?

What is absurd is your grasping st straws asusmption that it can't be found out whether a Person is some ignorant Libtard or not.

One of our members back during the '04 election did a little digging via the internet and discoverd that a DU member claiming to be a "lifelong Republican who is voting for Kerry"...was actually a lifelong DEMOCRAT who'd NEVER voted Republican.

So your claim that the discovery of the founders of snopes being Liberal is "absurd" is itself absurd.

And it's amazing how you libs never have a problem with the invisible "they" and "unnamed sources" when it comes to trying to smear or insinuate things about a Republican...yet when one of your own Libtard brethren is outed...it's suddenly something evil and sinister.

The elections over so forget it. McCain lost and it's doubtful snopes.com had much to do with it.

Did anyone here blame some less than credible "debunking" site for McCain losing?

No one here has.

That's an "absurd" assumption on your part Libtard.

[dutch508]

Ah,


a new liberal defender of the (un)faith.

Welcome.

[crockspot]

Wikipedia got to got bottom of it? If they did, it was probably deleted soon thereafter. Wikipedia does not investigate anything. It merely reports on what other more reliable sources have already reported. Wikipedia does not even consider itself to be a reliable source.

[formerlurker]

The first 2 sentences of the starting email's paragraph 2 read: 

"But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com.  Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding."

My very hasty look at the internet led me to an article identifying the people "behind snopes.com" dated 2001  (Google: salon.com mieszkowski mikkelson debunk) and another from 2004 (Google: snopes.com the ultimate debunker). So the part about trying for years to find out who's behind snopes.com is ridiculous and it was my first clue that the email was written by a crackpot.

This following sentence from the starting email leads me to believe hat the whole purpose of the writing was political:

"Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic
(party) and extremely liberal."

What an absurd sentence if you have no proof.Back it up! Who learned it? How did they learn it? What proof is there? Could it have been the omnipresent "THEY" who found out? The always unidentified "THEY" who are used to prove things?

The elections over so forget it. McCain lost and it's doubtful snopes.com had much to do with it.

you want to try again, this time with cohesive thoughts perhaps? 

[Ralph Wiggum]

What is absurd is your grasping st straws asusmption that it can't be found out whether a Person is some ignorant Libtard or not.

One of our members back during the '04 election did a little digging via the internet and discoverd that a DU member claiming to be a "lifelong Republican who is voting for Kerry"...was actually a lifelong DEMOCRAT who'd NEVER voted Republican.

So your claim that the discovery of the founders of snopes being Liberal is "absurd" is itself absurd.

And it's amazing how you libs never have a problem with the invisible "they" and "unnamed sources" when it comes to trying to smear or insinuate things about a Republican...yet when one of your own Libtard brethren is outed...it's suddenly something evil and sinister.

Did anyone here blame some less than credible "debunking" site for McCain losing?

No one here has.

That's an "absurd" assumption on your part Libtard.

Ah, the Jeb Eddy story.  Fond memories.

[TheSarge]

It is what it is, just a couple of people trying to address whether various internet folklore and urban legends are true or not.   Why is that so hard to deal with?

*ahem*

So why, a generation later, does the Times begin an article by rebutting an assertion that the ad in question (watch it here) does not even make? Because 2008 is the year in which "fact checking" of political ads and statements became a full-blown journalistic fad. May it soon go the way of streaking and Mexican jumping beans.

The "fact check" is opinion journalism or criticism, masquerading as straight news. The object is not merely to report facts but to pass a judgment. The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog ends each assessment with between one and four "Pinocchios," just like movie reviewers giving out stars.

Like movie reviewing, the "fact check" is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be "fact checked." The facts themselves are sufficient. "Fact checks" end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122339946870411861.html


Just sayin...

[Tess Anderson]

I thought just about everybody knew snopes was just a DNC propoganda factory disguised as some mom and pop start up internet site, despite what they says otherwise:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp

That's when they're lying about not being partisan. Someone sent me an e-mail listing all the deaths associated with the Clintons. Of course, someone else sent a link to Snopes saying that this was debunked. I went to the site and it was nothing more than Democratic talking points right from James Carville’s playbook.

http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=219

Consider the wording of the Snopes claim "Have Your Yellowcake" , which would lead the reader to believe that Saddam Hussein was not trying to restart Iraq's nuclear program.  It says nothing of the Duelfer Report which found damning evidence to the contrary. Babs is a Canadian transplant married to a California socialist. They supposedly are connected with the Annesburg Foundation as well, that's why libtards love snopes.

[crockspot]

Ah, the Jeb Eddy story.  Fond memories.

Yes, outing Jeb pretty much put the nail in the coffin of my hopes to be a Wikipedia admin, but well worth it in the end.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Yes, outing Jeb pretty much put the nail in the coffin of my hopes to be a Wikipedia admin, but well worth it in the end.

Why would that prohibit you from being an admin, Wiki is supposed to fair to all sides, right?

[crockspot]

Why would that prohibit you from being an admin, Wiki is supposed to fair to all sides, right?

um... yeah.