Snopes.com - The Liberals' Answer to Glenn Beck

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
User avatar
b.k. barunt
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:33 pm

Re: Snopes.com - The Liberals' Answer to Glenn Beck

Post by b.k. barunt »

Symmetry wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
Sigh, this is pretty tiring, but seeing as every post of yours I see has several palpable falsities, Let's just start with the obvious mistake: It's not just a husband and wife team:

Here

They employ other fact checkers.


Sigh, you're right - pretty tiring. <snigger> So if you preface a weak (some might say misleading) assertion with a condescending tone people will just assume you know your stuff and not even bother to check the link you cite, amirite?

According to you, it's not just a husband and wife team but they employ other "fact checkers". According to the article you cited, the bulk of email has lately become such that the husband and wife had to employ a couple people to help read the email. More than likely a couple of students working below minimum wage and helping sort through a plethora of spam - "fact checkers"?? - hell, why don't you just go for broke and call them "certified fact assessors"?

How about them palpable falsies?

Honibaz


I actually didn't expect you to check the link, but not because it's inaccurate. More because you've ignored simple corrections in the past. I can understand your difficulty with fact-checking websites.

So we're agreed that you were wrong about them just being two people, and we can accept that they employ others? I note that you've ignored the first time I posted this article, removing the arguments that they aren't partisan.

It seems like your arguments are often based on pure speculation, or deliberate misreading. Any evidence to back up the sub minimum wage student stuff that you posted? Nah.

Palpable falsities? Does anything you wrote on the Nyookular thread still stand up?


More of the same? I would certainly be happy to indulge you for the sake of ennui but i have to watch some paint dry right now.


Honibaz
User avatar
InkL0sed
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Gender: Male
Location: underwater
Contact:

Re: Snopes.com - The Liberals' Answer to Glenn Beck

Post by InkL0sed »

Symmetry wrote:
GabonX wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
GabonX wrote:It seems like your ignoring the important part of the argument..


Enlighten me

Also "You're"

I think I would much rather thank you for pointing out my carelessness..

A smart guy like you shouldn't need my help.


So cryptic, and so well written. An improvement on your last post? Sure, but lacking in meaning. At least you learned how to bloody spelll.


It's "spell".

b.k. barunt wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
Sigh, this is pretty tiring, but seeing as every post of yours I see has several palpable falsities, Let's just start with the obvious mistake: It's not just a husband and wife team:

Here

They employ other fact checkers.


Sigh, you're right - pretty tiring. <snigger> So if you preface a weak (some might say misleading) assertion with a condescending tone people will just assume you know your stuff and not even bother to check the link you cite, amirite?

According to you, it's not just a husband and wife team but they employ other "fact checkers". According to the article you cited, the bulk of email has lately become such that the husband and wife had to employ a couple people to help read the email. More than likely a couple of students working below minimum wage and helping sort through a plethora of spam - "fact checkers"?? - hell, why don't you just go for broke and call them "certified fact assessors"?

How about them palpable falsies?

Honibaz


I actually didn't expect you to check the link, but not because it's inaccurate. More because you've ignored simple corrections in the past. I can understand your difficulty with fact-checking websites.

So we're agreed that you were wrong about them just being two people, and we can accept that they employ others? I note that you've ignored the first time I posted this article, removing the arguments that they aren't partisan.

It seems like your arguments are often based on pure speculation, or deliberate misreading. Any evidence to back up the sub minimum wage student stuff that you posted? Nah.

Palpable falsities? Does anything you wrote on the Nyookular thread still stand up?


More of the same? I would certainly be happy to indulge you for the sake of ennui but i have to watch some paint dry right now.


Honibaz


Well, now I'm convinced.
User avatar
Symmetry
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Snopes.com - The Liberals' Answer to Glenn Beck

Post by Symmetry »

InkL0sed wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
So cryptic, and so well written. An improvement on your last post? Sure, but lacking in meaning. At least you learned how to bloody spelll.


It's "spell".



This works every time.
Last edited by Symmetry on Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Symmetry
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Snopes.com - The Liberals' Answer to Glenn Beck

Post by Symmetry »

b.k. barunt wrote: i have to watch some paint dry right now.

Honibaz


Prove it.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”