May 12, 201610 yr Author Nope 2 Humped has given his last $20 bucks to a site that used to be pretty good. It's sad that the founder has been such a contributor to its downfall. Everything has a season I guess. We can part ways right now?
May 12, 201610 yr We can part ways right now? If you want to prorate and refund the remaining months of my subscription?
May 12, 201610 yr Author If you want to prorate and refund the remaining months of my subscription? There are no refunds, that is stated upfront.
May 12, 201610 yr Author So was rule number 6... The Clinton Body Count : snopes.com :idunno: You show me where I violated Rule 6. Be specific.
May 12, 201610 yr I've seen this list many times. Not sure how truthful it is. But I've always said even if 50% of info is correct , it's very scary. I'm always wary of lists of this nature, seems like the "relationship" is often stretched pretty thin. However you're right that some small percentage would give pause.
May 12, 201610 yr Author Here is an interesting link about Snopes.com: What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated. So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself. Accuracy In Politics: Snopes Got Snoped
May 12, 201610 yr Here is an interesting link about Snopes.com: What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated. So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself. Accuracy In Politics: Snopes Got Snoped So now you're resorting to discrediting Snopes?
May 12, 201610 yr So now you're resorting to discrediting Snopes? I see this as someone who searches for the truth rather than being like sheep led to the slaughter.
May 12, 201610 yr Author So now you're resorting to discrediting Snopes? Snopes may lean a little left. And since we are talking about "the implications" I think either left or right political leanings are relevant to the conversation.
May 12, 201610 yr This definitely can be viewed as a Rule 6 violation because (a) no attempt was made to put the list in proper context and (b) the 'truth emerges' part of the headline. Your turn.
May 12, 201610 yr Author This definitely can be viewed as a Rule 6 violation because (a) no attempt was made to put the list in proper context and (b) the 'truth emerges' part of the headline. Your turn. So you work here now? LOL Back to the topic at hand. You are 100% wrong. I stated the context with the title, I personally titled it an Anti-Clinton list.
May 12, 201610 yr So you work here now? LOL Back to the topic at hand. You are 100% wrong. I stated the context with the title, I personally titled it an Anti-Clinton list. You asked for feedback in post 21. I provided feedback in post 28. I must have missed something.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.