Snopes = Scam?

[SP33Demon]

Snopes has now confirmed that ATOT > Lady Gaga.

 

[zinfamous]

I have no idea, but it doesn't take a professional to research claims. If they do the proper work, it doesn't matter what their qualifications are.

this one right here.

 

[zinfamous]

Snopes likes to portray itself as the ultimate and final arbiter of all that is factually correct and incorrect. It isnt.

It provides an opinion and some evidence to support those opinions (flimsy as it may be). But in the end, its just that - THEIR OPINION.

People like to give Snopes more credit than they are due and consider certain items "debunked" if said opinion is given. In reality, that is an erroneous position to take.

when an argument is supported by evidence, vs your type of arguments, well, it all just serves to make you look a little silly, doesn't it?

 

[FelixDeCat]

You mean I really am eligible to win money from Microsoft if I forwarded that e-mail 1000 times!?

Did I say that? No.

But if you give me your email, Ill give you the real low down on snopes and those two dodgy people who run it, the Mikkelsons. :sneaky:

 

[Juddog]

Did I say that? No.

But if you give me your email, Ill give you the real low down on snopes and those two dodgy people who run it, the Mikkelsons. :sneaky:

Are you a nigerian prince? Because I don't give out my e-mail to any peasant scum.

 

[moshquerade]

perfect rumor :thumbsup:

 

[Vette73]

Why? Did they say something bad about chiropractors?

well kinda maybe... :hmm:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/prisoner.asp

http://www.snopes.com/history/hoaxes/bathtub.asp



:awe:

 

[Q]

 

[Train]

no one posted the XKCD comic yet?

fail! all of you!

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

no one posted the XKCD comic yet?

fail! all of you!

fail! just you!

 

[Juddog]

no one posted the XKCD comic yet?

fail! all of you!

Learn to read, it was posted on page 1.

 

[Train]

Learn to read, it was posted on page 1.

self pwned.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Learn to read, it was posted on page 1.

posts-per-page is set by the user

 

[CKent]

This from a supporter of chiropractic...

 

[Josh]

haahaaahahahahahahahahahaahahaahah

 

[eits]

Why? Did they say something bad about chiropractors?

lol no, i just heard from a friend, who is a hardcore conservative, that snopes was a scam and that they had no credibility and (all the other stuff i posted in the op).

my friend was told to check out truthorfiction.com or something instead, because it's more factually sound.

i headed there and, obviously, there's a ton of slant to the right.

i was completely unaware of any left slant from snopes.com, but apparently, according to hardcore conservatives, obama can do no wrong on snopes... i dunno.

i was just wondering if anyone had heard about this or not.

 

[Juddog]

lol no, i just heard from a friend, who is a hardcore conservative, that snopes was a scam and that they had no credibility and (all the other stuff i posted in the op).

my friend was told to check out truthorfiction.com or something instead, because it's more factually sound.

i headed there and, obviously, there's a ton of slant to the right.

i was completely unaware of any left slant from snopes.com, but apparently, according to hardcore conservatives, obama can do no wrong on snopes... i dunno.

i was just wondering if anyone had heard about this or not.

They're just pissed that snopes listed many of the fallacies that people make up about him and debunk them. When a site counters your lies, next step is to attack the credibility of the site.

 

[Adrenaline]

apparently, it's just two people with no background in investigative reporting? any validity to this claim?

I received an email about this 2 weeks ago. Apparently someone, may have been associated with Wikipedia, decided to find out who owned Snopes and it is a couple that do not do to much research on things. They were also hinted at being very liberal minded which influenced truthfulness to some of the harsher emails towards Democrats that circulated around the net. I did not know how much truth there was to the liberal part so I did not bother to put anything out about it here. I thought somebody already had.

 

[eits]

well kinda maybe... :hmm:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/prisoner.asp

http://www.snopes.com/history/hoaxes/bathtub.asp



:awe:

the first link doesn't really say for or against chiropractors...
the second link doesn't either... if anything, it'd be for chiropractors and against medical doctors (md's thought baths caused illnesses, chiropractors didn't and thought the md's were standing in the way of progress of healthcare).

anyways, NOT THE POINT! get back on the subject...

 

[Sumguy]

You want them to be some sort of private investigators?

They're internet rumors, when it really gets down to it who gives a fuck.

 

[zinfamous]

lol no, i just heard from a friend, who is a hardcore conservative, that snopes was a scam and that they had no credibility and (all the other stuff i posted in the op).

my friend was told to check out truthorfiction.com or something instead, because it's more factually sound.

i headed there and, obviously, there's a ton of slant to the right.

i was completely unaware of any left slant from snopes.com, but apparently, according to hardcore conservatives, obama can do no wrong on snopes... i dunno.

i was just wondering if anyone had heard about this or not.

well, facts do have a liberal bias.

everyone knows this.

 

[meltdown75]

quit snoping around

 

[Mike Gayner]

Irony in this thread is over 9000.

 

[zinfamous]

the first link doesn't really say for or against chiropractors...
the second link doesn't either... if anything, it'd be for chiropractors and against medical doctors (md's thought baths caused illnesses, chiropractors didn't and thought the md's were standing in the way of progress of healthcare).

anyways, NOT THE POINT! get back on the subject...

the first link questions the validity of the author:

For the record, "Dr" Sillyfacepants is a chiropractor.

So, basically, they are exposing a rather distrustful eye towards an argument made by a chiropractor--quoting his Dr. title, and simply announcing his field.

It's like the "scientists" that the fundies bring out to support ID are always astrologers or fringe physicists; scientists that have absolutely no expertise in Biology, Molecular genetics, or any other scientific field that works with evolution. In such cases, it's important to point out the source of so-called expert opinions, b/c an expert in one area is a complete layman in another.

 

[Iron Woode]

lol no, i just heard from a friend, who is a hardcore conservative, that snopes was a scam and that they had no credibility and (all the other stuff i posted in the op).

my friend was told to check out truthorfiction.com or something instead, because it's more factually sound.

i headed there and, obviously, there's a ton of slant to the right.

i was completely unaware of any left slant from snopes.com, but apparently, according to hardcore conservatives, obama can do no wrong on snopes... i dunno.

i was just wondering if anyone had heard about this or not.

did you actually read what they said about Snopes?

Summary of the eRumor:
An eRumor about Snopes.com accusing them being owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama.

The Truth:
In October, 2008, stories began circulating via forwarded emails that the popular urban legends site Snopes.com was owned by liberals and was "in the tank" for presidential candidate Barack Obama.

As with many forwarded emails, the criticism did not include any example of what the writer of the email claimed was the difference between what Snopes.com reported and what Barack Obama had actually said.


Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded emails. We regard David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and operators of Snopes.com, as colleagues and professional researchers who have earned a good reputation for what they do.

We can give a unique perspective on this story because we do the same kind of work as Snopes.com and have sometimes been the target of similar criticism.

We've got a collection of emails that have come to TruthOrFiction.com accusing us of being "right wing whackos" as well as "liberals" and "communists." We've been suspected of being owned and operated by both Republicans and Democrats. We've been called "Christian propagandists" as well as "atheists pretending to be neutral." We occasionally receive emails that have elaborate theories about who "really" owns us and what our "real" motives are.

The bottom line is that if you try to report the truth, there will be those who don't like the truth you've reported and who will develop suspicions about why you did.


That, in our view, is what is happening with Snopes.

The 2008 presidential campaign has been one of the most intense and unique in our nation's history and has prompted more political eRumors than any presidential campaign in our experience, especially about Barack Obama.

These anti-Snopes emails have probably been prompted by someone who does not like Barack Obama and does not like the fact that Snopes (or TruthOrFiction.com for that matter) has debunked some of the emails that are not true about him.


One of the versions of the eRumor mentions TruthOrFiction.com and recommends our site. We appreciate that, but we want to say for the record that we've had nothing to do with this eRumor about Snopes.com and we condemn it.

updated 10/21/08