Can we trust Snopes?

[Rick Otto]

Found this looking for an answer:
"Received this in an email this morning, looks real. Too much (staff edit) floating around the net, don't know wether to believe it or not. Whatcha think.

SNOPES NO MORE
Many of the emails that have been

sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama in it

were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.



Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court's Kagan
We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! You don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya?

We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros! Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros; a big time supporter of Obama!

In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan who Obama appointed and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets so I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what?

Yep you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there. So Here is what I wrote to Snopes: Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false.

I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking.


Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it. That being said, I’ll bet you didn't know this. Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly. Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on.

Once again the US Senate sold us out! Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time.

All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there. Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket:

You can look up some of these hearings and guess what? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama! Check out these examples:
http://www.supremeco...les/09-8857.htm
http://www.supremeco...les/09-6790.htm
http://www.supremeco...iles/09-724.htm


If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete. However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution; by all means, PASS it ON! There truly is tyranny afoot."

 

[brinny]

Found this looking for an answer:
"Received this in an email this morning, looks real. Too much (staff edit) floating around the net, don't know wether to believe it or not. Whatcha think.

SNOPES NO MORE
Many of the emails that have been

sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama in it

were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.



Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court's Kagan
We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! You don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya?

We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros! Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros; a big time supporter of Obama!

In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan who Obama appointed and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets so I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what?

Yep you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there. So Here is what I wrote to Snopes: Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false.

I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking.


Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it. That being said, I’ll bet you didn't know this. Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly. Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on.

Once again the US Senate sold us out! Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time.

All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there. Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket:

You can look up some of these hearings and guess what? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama! Check out these examples:
http://www.supremeco...les/09-8857.htm
http://www.supremeco...les/09-6790.htm
http://www.supremeco...iles/09-724.htm


If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete. However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution; by all means, PASS it ON! There truly is tyranny afoot."

I didn't know this. I just knew that Snopes was unreliable and was not a place i went to for accurate information.

Now it all makes sense.

Thank you.

 

[Oafman]

If we all spread this email around as widely as possible then if we're lucky, Snopes will debunk it!

They always show their work. It's like people who criticise Wikipedia but never click on the sources!

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Just like anything else, sometimes you can trust it. Not always. People who consistently use any one source as the definitive answer are, well, not smart.

 

[brinny]

If we all spread this email around as widely as possible then if we're lucky, Snopes will debunk it!

They always show their work. It's like people who criticise Wikipedia but never click on the sources!

'Tis good to get to the bottom of if something is reliable, tho', isn't it?

My experience with Snopes is that they are not accurate and therefore not trustworthy.

Investigating them is a GOOD thing.

Yes?

 

[brinny]

Just like anything else, sometimes you can trust it. Not always. People who consistently use any one source as the definitive answer are, well, not smart.

i agree.

 

[Cearbhall]

I didn't know this. I just knew that Snopes was unreliable and was not a place i went to for accurate information.

What led you to that conclusion, then? Just curious. I've always relied on Snopes.

 

[Oafman]

'Tis good to get to the bottom of if something is reliable, tho', isn't it?

My experience with Snopes is that they are not accurate and therefore not trustworthy.

Investigating them is a GOOD thing.

Yes?

Of course. Being an investigative site, I doubt they would disagree.

What they are not, is an opinion site. Because when they make claims, they link to sources. They are there for us all to read, and to draw our own conclusions, whether the same as those of Snopes, or different. You're not expected to take their word for things.

Also, they sometimes strike an enjoyably dry humorous tone, which I like!

 

[Oafman]

What led you to that conclusion, then? Just curious. I've always relied on Snopes.

I suspect it's because they show things to be false which Brinny wanted to be true....

 

[brinny]

Of course. Being an investigative site, I doubt they would disagree.

What they are not, is an opinion site. Because when they make claims, they link to sources. They are there for us all to read, and to draw our own conclusions, whether the same as those of Snopes, or different. You're not expected to take their word for things.

Also, they sometimes strike an enjoyably dry humorous tone, which I like!

From my experiences with Snopes, they don't "investigate" well, and their sources are questionable.

and i have experienced a humor of sorts of my own in reading their "findings".

Perhaps they're not meant to be taken seriously.

Are they owned by the couple mentioned in the OP?

 

[brinny]

I suspect it's because they show things to be false which Brinny wanted to be true....

LOL!

Nah, their "investigations" were humorous in that they had no credibility, and neither did the sources they listed.

What was humorous is that they honestly believed anyone would take them at face value?

I agree, tho' that no one should just rely on a source without doing their own investigation.

Certainly not with Snopes.

 

[Cute Tink]

From my experiences with Snopes, they don't "investigate" well, and their sources are questionable.

and i have experienced a humor of sorts of my own in reading their "findings".

Perhaps they're not meant to be taken seriously.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples you can point to?

 

[brinny]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples you can point to?

Alas, not off the top of my head....

it's been a while since i've sought any information on Snopes.

Do you disagree with the OP?

 

[crjmurray]

Normal people can.

 

[Cute Tink]

Alas, not off the top of my head....

it's been a while since i've sought any information on Snopes.

Do you disagree with the OP?

I have no reason to dispute whether a certain individual funds Snopes or not. Given that Snopes gives their rationale every time for the reader to peruse I think is a mark in their favor.

However, the OP is a cut and paste with no source. Snopes, however, points out that there is a challenge on this subject from 2010 (old news) from World Net Daily, a source that doesn't have the strongest trustworthy rating either. The OP doesn't actually link to the Snopes article they are disputing, which I find interesting as well.

I'll allow Snopes to speak for themselves though and you can take it with however much salt you wish. It's really no issue of mine whether you trust their veracity, but I have found them rather informative in taking down Facebook rumor posts like the moon at the North Pole, giant camel spiders and other such urban legends.

 

[brinny]

I have no reason to dispute whether a certain individual funds Snopes or not. Given that Snopes gives their rationale every time for the reader to peruse I think is a mark in their favor.

However, the OP is a cut and paste with no source. Snopes, however, points out that there is a challenge on this subject from 2010 (old news) from World Net Daily, a source that doesn't have the strongest trustworthy rating either. The OP doesn't actually link to the Snopes article they are disputing, which I find interesting as well.

I'll allow Snopes to speak for themselves though and you can take it with however much salt you wish. It's really no issue of mine whether you trust their veracity, but I have found them rather informative in taking down Facebook rumor posts like the moon at the North Pole, giant camel spiders and other such urban legends.

I agree. "tis good to take ev'ry thing with a grain o' salt, isn't it?

In addition, Snopes is a website that we all can investigate, especially if what we find doesn't add up. It's just a site, right?

And yes, i agree. Why would it matter to anyone if they find Snopes credible or do not?

That's here nor there, isn't it?

To each his own, right?

 

[Rick Otto]

I suspect it's because they show things to be false which Brinny wanted to be true....

lol, no need to be polite, right?

 

[keith99]

'Tis good to get to the bottom of if something is reliable, tho', isn't it?

My experience with Snopes is that they are not accurate and therefore not trustworthy.

Investigating them is a GOOD thing.

Yes?

Care to give an example?

 

[Rick Otto]

I have no reason to dispute whether a certain individual funds Snopes or not. Given that Snopes gives their rationale every time for the reader to peruse I think is a mark in their favor.

However, the OP is a cut and paste with no source. Snopes, however, points out that there is a challenge on this subject from 2010 (old news) from World Net Daily, a source that doesn't have the strongest trustworthy rating either. The OP doesn't actually link to the Snopes article they are disputing, which I find interesting as well.

I'll allow Snopes to speak for themselves though and you can take it with however much salt you wish. It's really no issue of mine whether you trust their veracity, but I have found them rather informative in taking down Facebook rumor posts like the moon at the North Pole, giant camel spiders and other such urban legends.

I find it interesting you expect a link when you know you can just paste it all on google search and be there in two clicks.
Casting suspicion without addressing content that provides verifiable information deserves a rating.

 

[brinny]

Care to give an example?

Unfortunately it's been a while since i've utilized Snopes.