Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After 40 responses, I believe Snopes is down one. I should have made it a poll.
Polls are irrelevant. You can look at the documents yourself and find out what is in them.
If you were on a game show where you could poll the audience and you were asked who was the last Capetian king of France, would you rather poll the audience or look it up in an encyclopedia (if that were permitted)?
I have noticed they were always fishy about things. They don't research their facts well and when an issue is blatantly obvious to the facts, yet is of a position that is uncomfortable for the left, it always says "partially true" and then goes through tons of hoops to imply it really isn't true anyway. *chuckle*
Well then you should have no trouble at all giving us an example to examine.
I can't really say if Snopes deliberately lies but like everything else on the Internet, there have been more than a few errors. Like Wiki, it's generally right but not to be relied on for anything more than entertainment value.
I can't really say if Snopes deliberately lies but like everything else on the Internet, there have been more than a few errors. Like Wiki, it's generally right but not to be relied on for anything more than entertainment value.
That's why you go to the original source if you find something dubious. Snopes is scrupulous about documenting sources.
Snopes is definitely a left wing rag that purposely lies. I've known this for a long time.
True, same can be said for FactCheck. both are in the tank for Obama.
Mass media propoganda includes CNN, ABC, CNBC, and FOX. I believe Fox is somewhat better, but I wouldn't trust any of them for truth.
I can't really say if Snopes deliberately lies but like everything else on the Internet, there have been more than a few errors. Like Wiki, it's generally right but not to be relied on for anything more than entertainment value.
The "wikipedia is not reliable" meme is pretty horrible. How many people have been legitimately duped by something on wikipedia? It's not like half of the pages are full of blatant lies. There are some errors, and there is some vandalism. The vandalism is usually pretty obvious and gets fixed very quickly. The errors get corrected faster than on most websites.
Studies have shown that on a per-word basis, there are fewer factual errors on wikipedia than in Encyclopedia Britanica.
Yes, you probably don't want to rely on it as your only source if lives are on the line. But how often is that the case for people who try to discredit wikipedia out-of-hand on a regular basis??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I should have made it a poll.
Is Snopes legit???
