Posted: 3/15/2004 1:46:25 PM EDT
|
Why is everything they say taken as gospel??? (Not saying they shouldn't - just wondering why they have some supposed monopoly on true vs. fiction) I mean, as many jollies as people get about spreading false stories on the 'net, some people get more jollies about being the wet blanket on the party. Like their stature is heightened by saying "Nah, that's false." So what's the deal? WHO is Snopes.com?? Are they suppsoedly free of bias? What research do they do? Are they 100% accurate?? |
|
No, I've read what I have perceived to be a slight "leftward" bias in some of their pages, but I may just be looking for that... [;)] I use them to check out ANY e-mail story before passing it along to others as true. And I'm one of these you are talking about who always responds to the sender with a link to the snopes.com debunking if it isn't true (so much so that one of my sisters-in-law doesn't even forward stuff to me anymore - no great loss...). I wouldn't say I get any perverse pleasure out of being the "party pooper," but I would feel bad if I passed something along as true & it wasn't... |
| Garandman, just wondering... are you like my grandpa? He forwards fricken EVERY unbelievable story to me haha. I hardly ever respond. Sometimes I respond with a link to snopes, and he says "well, better safe than sorry!" (i.e. better to read the email about how to be SAFE from attackers who will hide under your car and slit your ankles and have it be wrong, then to (omg) NOT KNOW AT ALL!! hahahaha |
|
Quoted: Garandman, just wondering... are you like my grandpa? He forwards fricken EVERY unbelievable story to me haha. I hardly ever respond. Sometimes I respond with a link to snopes, and he says "well, better safe than sorry!" (i.e. better to read the email about how to be SAFE from attackers who will hide under your car and slit your ankles and have it be wrong, then to (omg) NOT KNOW AT ALL!! hahahaha [LOLabove] I know people just like that. |
|
Nothing should -ever- be taken as gospel, but the information on snopes often provides other references and even if they don't their entry usually provides a line of critical thinking that makes more sense than what they are disproving. I often fing myself thinking, "yeah, and they didn't even mention [this] and I remember reading something about [that]." A perfect example is their breakdown of the "modern railroads are based on the size of a Roman horse's ass" story. |
|
The signature lines are an artifact from the newsgroup alt.folklore.urban, where the people who run Snopes are regulars. And if I get ONE MORE EMAIL telling me that Bill Gates is tracking forwards and will send a buttjillion dollars to everyone who forwards the email on to a thousand people, I'll... I'll... well I dunno what I'll do, but it won't be pretty. Yes, I am a "wet blanket". Remember that, and don't send me any of those silly stories and expect me to get all worked up about them, ok? We need to save bandwidth for future generations. For God's sake, think of the children. |
|
Quoted: Snopes has a few dummy articles on their site that are BS on purpose. They prove that you cannot believe everything you hear off the internet. They used to have 3 articles. I think one was Mr. Ed being a Zebra, and you could not tell on B&W TV. [url]http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.htm[/url] |
|
Quoted: Garandman, just wondering... are you like my grandpa? He forwards fricken EVERY unbelievable story to me haha. LOL Actually, I'm just the opposite. I take it as a matter of pride to NEVER have forwarded an email. Don't tell her, but I even delete my mom's forwarded emails without reading them. [}:D] |
|
I couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm a 'wet blanket' for exposing someone's deliberate attempt to deceive (or someone else's gullibility and complacency in spreading it). Not that there's all that much satisfaction in exposing a lie – After all, it don't take no rocket scientist to use Google, Snopes or any of a bazillon other websites that would quickly uncover the truth. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Why is everything they say taken as gospel??? Well, it isn't. That would totally contradict the point* of that site, wouldn't it? * You shouldn't take every bullshit story off the 'net at face value. Check for accuracy. And Snopes is the gospel as for checking for accuracy - at least that's the way I've always heard it protrayed. "If Snopes says its bogus, well, then, it *** MUST **** be bogus" is the attitude. The POINT is "Who is checking Snopes for accuracy?" |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is everything they say taken as gospel??? Well, it isn't. That would totally contradict the point* of that site, wouldn't it? * You shouldn't take every bullshit story off the 'net at face value. Check for accuracy. And Snopes is the gospel as for checking for accuracy - at least that's the way I've always heard it protrayed. "If Snopes says its bogus, well, then, it *** MUST **** be bogus" is the attitude. The POINT is "Who is checking Snopes for accuracy?" Dude, I am getting scared, it sounds more like... "Who watches the watchmen?" ByteTheBullet (-: |
|
Quoted: Why is everything they say taken as gospel??? (Not saying they shouldn't - just wondering why they have some supposed monopoly on true vs. fiction) I mean, as many jollies as people get about spreading false stories on the 'net, some people get more jollies about being the wet blanket on the party. Like their stature is heightened by saying "Nah, that's false." So what's the deal? WHO is Snopes.com?? Are they suppsoedly free of bias? What research do they do? Are they 100% accurate?? Kinda reminds you of Southern Baptists, doesn't it?. |
| People accept Snopes' word because they show their work - they tell you what they do to verify a story, and if they can't verify it either as being true or false, they tell you so. You can read what they do and decide if they've made their case or not. There's quite a few things I read there that are "unverified" or "undetermined", which adds to their credibility. |
|
Quoted: Dude, I am getting scared, it sounds more like... "Who watches the watchmen?" ByteTheBullet (-: You ain't wrong. [:D] Just seems like the majority of Snopes stuff is to debunk things that support the conservative agenda. If someone can lie to create an internet hoax email, other people can lie to attempt to debunk a true story. And those sorts of thing is right up the alley of those who beleive the ends justify the means. I just want to know "Can we trust Snopes? Who are they? Who pays their bills? Who they carryin' water for?" |
|
Quoted: Kinda reminds you of Southern Baptists, doesn't it?. Not really. Southern baptists, at least the ones who follow Scripture, are mora about turning the other cheek with people like you, filled with hate, who throw ad hominem attacks at them, in threads like this mone that have NOTHING to do with religion. I'm no psychologist, but you seemed obsessed with hate against religious people. Maybe justifiable, maybe not. But its YOUR life you could be destroying with hatred. |
|
Quoted: People accept Snopes' word because they show their work - they tell you what they do to verify a story, and if they can't verify it either as being true or false, they tell you so. You can read what they do and decide if they've made their case or not. There's quite a few things I read there that are "unverified" or "undetermined", which adds to their credibility. OK good response. But take the Kerry / Fonda pics they debunk as hoaxes. All they did was rattle off the names of some obscure photographers who supposedly took the two separate individual pics that were then "shopped" to make one phony pic. Who are those photographers? Are they the same ilk as the 9/11 victims bashing Bush for using pics of 9/11 in his ads? What's THEIR agenda? What's Snopes agenda?? All Snopes really does is throw some unverifiable facts around, which is impressive on its face, but then...IS IT REALLY??? I place faith in God. All others I am skeptical of. [:D] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is everything they say taken as gospel??? Well, it isn't. That would totally contradict the point* of that site, wouldn't it? * You shouldn't take every bullshit story off the 'net at face value. Check for accuracy. And Snopes is the gospel as for checking for accuracy - at least that's the way I've always heard it protrayed. "If Snopes says its bogus, well, then, it *** MUST **** be bogus" is the attitude. The POINT is "Who is checking Snopes for accuracy?" Dude, I am getting scared, it sounds more like... "Who watches the watchmen?" ByteTheBullet (-: Big Brother is watching [noclue] |
|
Quoted: ...But take the Kerry / Fonda pics they debunk as hoaxes. All they did was rattle off the names of some obscure photographers who supposedly took the two separate individual pics that were then "shopped" to make one phony pic. Who are those photographers? Are they the same ilk as the 9/11 victims bashing Bush for using pics of 9/11 in his ads? What's THEIR agenda? What's Snopes agenda??... I saw the one you're talking about - but they also verify a different picture of Fonda & Kerry: [url]http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp[/url] Not saying they don't have an agenda, mind you - just saying I don't know & they don't seem to lean 100% either way... ...as I said earlier in the thread, if I were asked my gut feeling I would say they lean more left than right (but I think that of just about everybody...) [;)] |