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.
Well, reading comprehension is certainly a weakness with some posters here.
Plagiarism is awful. They teach you not to do that in elementary school. You don't need a journalism degree to understand that.
But it's not the same as fabrication or fake news.
Well, it sort of is, if he was putting it out there as his original material. The info may or may not have been correct, but he is fake. Liberals, just eat your pie on this one. You are no better than conservatives. You’ve had a rough week with Cuomo and now this guy.
I have posted info on many of these "fact checkers" anytime someone links to one of them. The vast majority of them are left wing outfits with an agenda...
In the case of Snopes:
Quote:
One of Snopes’ leading fact-checkers is a former sex-and-fetish blogger who described her routine as smoking pot and posting to Snopes.com, and the company now is embroiled in a legal dispute between its former married founders that includes accusations the CEO used company money for prostitutes.
Quote:
The Daily Mail of London reported one of Snopes.com’s main fact checkers, Kim LaCapria, is disclosed to be a former sex-blogger who called herself “Vice Vixen.”
Snopes Founder Barbara Mikkelson (Photo: Facebook)
Her day-off activities she said on another blog were: “played scrabble, smoked pot, and posted to Snopes.’”
“That’s what I did on my day “on,” too,” she added.
Quote:
A DailyMail.com investigation found that Snopes.com’s founders, former husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson, are embroiled in a lengthy and bitter legal dispute in the wake of their divorce.
He has since remarried to a former escort and porn actress who is one of the site’s staff members.
The title of this thread is misleading. Plagiarism is not the same as "fake news." No one is saying that the articles Snopes posted on their site were incorrect or inaccurate, only that he did not credit the original source.
The righties don't care about any of that. They're desperate to find anything to smear anyone who disagrees with their worldview so they pick stories like this and twist it around until it says something that matches their propaganda. They truly are a depraved bunch.
Let's get it straight: the information posted on SNOPES was correct.
Can you post information that proves the information wasn't correct and reliable?
Yes, there has not been any indication that the postings on Snopes is incorrect. Sounds like one of their writers plagiarized a bunch of stuff, but it seems to have been accurate stuff.
Although I have seen many right wing supporters dismiss Snopes as biased, I have never seen them able to show that any Snopes article is inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterShipWreck
I have posted info on many of these "fact checkers" anytime someone links to one of them. The vast majority of them are left wing outfits with an agenda...
In the case of Snopes:
Ok, so there was a divorce and one of their writers is a former sex worker.
So what? This is a classic logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack, where the person is attacked rather than the argument. Divorced people and former sex workers can still be accurate fact checkers.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,633 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50655
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Yes, there has not been any indication that the postings on Snopes is incorrect. Sounds like one of their writers plagiarized a bunch of stuff, but it seems to have been accurate stuff.
Although I have seen many right wing supporters dismiss Snopes as biased, I have never seen them able to show that any Snopes article is inaccurate.
Ok, so there was a divorce and one of their writers is a former sex worker.
So what? This is a classic logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack, where the person is attacked rather than the argument. Divorced people and former sex workers can still be accurate fact checkers.
I haven't either, ever. Although they've certainly put a lot of energy into discrediting the source.
This is a classic logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack, where the person is attacked rather than the argument.
You're right. The fact that Snopes had no idea there was a plagiarist in their midst for 5 years, whilst they lectured the rest of us on honesty and integrity - well that doesn't reflect badly on them at all.
You're right. The fact that Snopes had no idea there was a plagiarist in their midst for 5 years, whilst they lectured the rest of us on honesty and integrity - well that doesn't reflect badly on them at all.
Got it
Can you link up their lecture?
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.
