Snopes.com - The Liberals' Answer to Glenn Beck

[thegreekdog]

greek, even though i've never personally experienced it, i've seen lots of other people proven objectively wrong before. there are two ways to handle it while retaining a modicum of dignity

1) graciously admit you were wrong
2) disappear from the thread and never post there again

what you are doing in lieu of these options is just humiliating for everyone involved. mostly you though.

I thought I had already done #1, but I guess it wasn't as clear as I anticipated.

I am wrong.

But you retracted your earlier admission after Woodruff failed to participate in the group hug of tolerance and acceptance.

This is true. I, thegreekdog, hereby retract the retraction of my earlier admission pursuant to the foregoing. Furthermore, I, thegreekdog, admit that I was wrong.

Signed by my hand - thegreekdog*

* Copyright Saxitoxin, Poland.

[john9blue]

This entire thread fails so hard...

[thegreekdog]

This entire thread fails so hard...

I disagree. I think it does not fail.

[john9blue]

I disagree. I think it does not fail.

You're right.

*leaves quietly while maintaining dignity*

Take notes, greek.

[SultanOfSurreal]

greek, even though i've never personally experienced it, i've seen lots of other people proven objectively wrong before. there are two ways to handle it while retaining a modicum of dignity

1) graciously admit you were wrong
2) disappear from the thread and never post there again

what you are doing in lieu of these options is just humiliating for everyone involved. mostly you though.

I thought I had already done #1, but I guess it wasn't as clear as I anticipated.

I am wrong.

On a somewhat related note, Sultan, you do #2 very well. It's frustrating too, in case you didn't know.

there's a difference between losing interest in a thread and slinking away in defeat. the difference is usually pretty self-evident. so if you can kindly show me where i've ever done the latter, i'd be all ears.

[thegreekdog]

I disagree. I think it does not fail.

You're right.

*leaves quietly while maintaining dignity*

Take notes, greek.

I loled.

[bedub1]

As for Barack Obama's "fifty-seven states" verbal slip-up, it wasn't long before some wags also spoofed a previous controversy over the senator's eschewing the wearing of a U.S. flag lapel pin by coming up with a revised version of that familiar adornment:

What are Wags?

[Woodruff]

As for Barack Obama's "fifty-seven states" verbal slip-up, it wasn't long before some wags also spoofed a previous controversy over the senator's eschewing the wearing of a U.S. flag lapel pin by coming up with a revised version of that familiar adornment:

What are Wags?

Based on hearing my grandmother use the term (it's an oldie), I suspect it is short-hand for "scallywags" (not sure that's spelled correctly).

[thegreekdog]

greek, even though i've never personally experienced it, i've seen lots of other people proven objectively wrong before. there are two ways to handle it while retaining a modicum of dignity

1) graciously admit you were wrong
2) disappear from the thread and never post there again

what you are doing in lieu of these options is just humiliating for everyone involved. mostly you though.

I thought I had already done #1, but I guess it wasn't as clear as I anticipated.

I am wrong.

On a somewhat related note, Sultan, you do #2 very well. It's frustrating too, in case you didn't know.

there's a difference between losing interest in a thread and slinking away in defeat. the difference is usually pretty self-evident. so if you can kindly show me where i've ever done the latter, i'd be all ears.

Decades of Rock thread.

Yeah, I'm not going to look through 3,000 pages of threads.

[Symmetry]

If you haven't seen the NYTimes article on Snopes, it's here:

Debunkers of Fictions Sift the Net

It debunks a few of the more random accusations against the site in this thread-

Notably they're not just a husband and wife team, and they're without a political agenda.

[Frigidus]

[bedub1]

That made me laugh like crazy....i wonder if I can find a snopes article about snopes sending out spam....

[Symmetry]

[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/snopes.png[/img

That made me laugh like crazy....i wonder if I can find a snopes article about snopes sending out spam....

You could look at their website, and maybe read the article I posted last:

Here

Is fact-checking really such a liberal pursuit now?

[pimpdave]

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IF YOU EAT POP ROCKS AND DRINK PEPSI YOU'LL FUCKING DIE

[Symmetry]

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IF YOU EAT POP ROCKS AND DRINK PEPSI YOU'LL FUCKING DIE

No

We in the UK have no sense of humour that we are of.

[Army of GOD]

*Army of GOD comes to thegreekdog's side with a sword and shield*

Sir, s***, you already gave up?! Sir.

[Symmetry]

*Army of GOD comes to thegreekdog's side with a sword and shield*

Sir, s***, you already gave up?! Sir.

Aye, soldier. Wait a moment.

[Phatscotty]

Scotty, this is about me not reading the article and continuing to argue like I know what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with whether you think President Obama is deferential to Muslims.

yes this happens everytime Woody is around. I will be "tapdancing" by the bottom of the next page based on this now.....you watch. for the record I severely challenge Woodys twisting of my meanings as an example pertaing to you guyses tiffy

Stop trolling and keep on-topic.

I can not. I must stop you from twisting my words before we can agree we are talking about the same topic. Tap tap that taint

[Symmetry]

I've been seeing this Snopes.com cited a lot lately so i looked into it. I figured it was a site with a number of investigators or somesuch - turns out it's just a husband and wife - David and Barbara Mikkelson - who do the shit for a hobby and they have a definite political agenda. Personally i could give a flying f*ck whether they slant to the left or right in their politics, but propaganda and disinformation tends to give me a case of the red ass, especially when it's from a source that's cited as being some kind of fact based internet mythbuster.

I've seen some pretty shoddy and opinionated crap come off the site in much the same asinine, dishonest style as Glenn Beck. I guess that's a part of political homostasis in this country - the conservatives can't have all the tards, amirite?


Honibaz

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.

Do they have a political slant to their agenda? No. Why do you assume they have?

So go on, you've seen some asinine, dishonest crap come off the site, would it be too much to ask for a link?

[hecter]

What's hard to understand is that a specific popular email chain claim is something that should interest anyone in the least. In other words, if you're gullible and stupid enough to believe that Obama visited 57 states because of some terroristic plot cooked up by Satan and Khaleid Sheik Mohammad to destroy America, a website called snopes ain't going to help you.

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?

Why do you care so much about a blurb? It's the title for an article, not a fucking synopsis. You'd make a great teacher...
"Well Jimmy, what's the title for your story?"
"The Little Train"
"No... That's no good. How about 'The Little Black Train That Went On a Long Trip Over the Mountain to The City On The Other Side So He Could Deliver Some Food So That They Wouldn't Starve To Death In The Winter'?"

[Symmetry]

What's hard to understand is that a specific popular email chain claim is something that should interest anyone in the least. In other words, if you're gullible and stupid enough to believe that Obama visited 57 states because of some terroristic plot cooked up by Satan and Khaleid Sheik Mohammad to destroy America, a website called snopes ain't going to help you.

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?

Why do you care so much about a blurb? It's the title for an article, not a fucking synopsis. You'd make a great teacher...
"Well Jimmy, what's the title for your story?"
"The Little Train"
"No... That's no good. How about 'The Little Black Train That Went On a Long Trip Over the Mountain to The City On The Other Side So He Could Deliver Some Food So That They Wouldn't Starve To Death In The Winter'?"

They seem to go by the rumours that are reported to them most often. It looks like right wingers forward this stuff around more often than others. I guess fact checking ends up seeming liberal.

[pimpdave]

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IF YOU EAT POP ROCKS AND DRINK PEPSI YOU'LL FUCKING DIE

No

We in the UK have no sense of humour that we are of.

YEAH BUT SNOPES IS ALL LIKE BIASED AND SHIT

FUCK SCIENTISTS ALL THEY BE DOING IS LYING.

MAGNETS IS FUCKING MAGIC YO

[b.k. barunt]

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

[thegreekdog]

What's hard to understand is that a specific popular email chain claim is something that should interest anyone in the least. In other words, if you're gullible and stupid enough to believe that Obama visited 57 states because of some terroristic plot cooked up by Satan and Khaleid Sheik Mohammad to destroy America, a website called snopes ain't going to help you.

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?

Why do you care so much about a blurb? It's the title for an article, not a fucking synopsis. You'd make a great teacher...
"Well Jimmy, what's the title for your story?"
"The Little Train"
"No... That's no good. How about 'The Little Black Train That Went On a Long Trip Over the Mountain to The City On The Other Side So He Could Deliver Some Food So That They Wouldn't Starve To Death In The Winter'?"

See above; I've retracted my previous statements.

[Snorri1234]

- who do the shit for a hobby and they have a definite political agenda.

Wait...what's their political agenda?