Snopes caught being dishonest?

usaloyal2theend said:
The very thought of the sweet taste of your public redress was more than he could bear. He is still wiping his chin and quivering.

He zigged when he shoulda' zagged. Pooped when he shoulda' popped!

:lmao:
Click to expand...

Like I said he just got so excited at being able to put on his pink panties again today~
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
Snopes amended their original article in response to this (I am posting the amendation):

http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/kagan.asp

You'd think all that would be a pretty convincing debunking, especially after other fact-checkers vetted our own article. Not so.

Within a couple of weeks we received e-mail from a "reader" who clearly didn't bother actually reading any portion of our article, who made the very same mistake that WND did (i.e., erroneously assuming that any docket item containing the names "Kagan" and "Obama" was a presidential eligibility case), and accused us of being politically biased liars:
WND article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets. The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed by WND and the examples you gave are blatently false. I went directly to the Supreme courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that WND made reference too. 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.
This correspondent's e-mail was also posted to the web, and from there it was embellished and sent winging around the Internet through e-mail forwards and blog posts, all undertaken by people who also didn't bother actually reading our article or otherwise verifying the veracity of what they were reproducing — they gleefully passed it on with complete disregard for the truth because it seemingly confirmed concepts they wanted to believe.

This phenomenon prompted a wave of e-mail messages to us (many of them collected here) from people who mindlessly forwarded us the original message, accused us of being liars, insisted they would never, ever trust us again, and demanded that we remove the "false" information about the non-existent Obama/Kagan eligibility connection from our site. All of these correspondents had clearly not made even the slightest effort to read our article (if they had, they'd have known that we didn't claim no docket items containing the names "Kagan" and "Obama" existed; we instead listed all of those docket items and documented that none of them dealt with presidential eligibility issues); they instead either blindly accepted the accusatory e-mail at face value or repeated the very same error that WND made and then berated us for supposedly stating that "there were no such dockets."

Every single one of those correspondents received a detailed response from us explaining why they were mistaken. To date, we haven't received a single apology.
Click to expand...

"Every single one of those correspondents received a detailed response from us explaining why they were mistaken. To date, we haven't received a single apology."

No apologies, what a surprise.

One of my friends who gets email from right wingers sent this to me a month ago. It was easy enough to check out but RWs are more interested in spreading lies.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Wrong about what Tom? I posted an email and asked if it were true? waterdork posted and showed snopes rationale...so wtf was I wrong about?
Click to expand...

tom must be smarting from that....

btw....one of those links does appear to have something to do with obama's eligibility...but WND's original claim is total horsehockey
 
Yurt said:
tom must be smarting from that....

btw....one of those links does appear to have something to do with obama's eligibility...but WND's original claim is total horsehockey
Click to expand...

She posted a load of crap and couldn't even be bothered to do some rudimentary research first, if it was anybody else you would be all over it. It seems to me that you are guilty of being a partisan hack!!
 
tom prendergast said:
She posted a load of crap and couldn't even be bothered to do some rudimentary research first, if it was anybody else you would be all over it. It seems to me that you are guilty of being a partisan hack!!
Click to expand...

LOL- you just have to pull some kind of victory out of this eh Tom? Come on give up your pink panties and dawn some tighty whitey's for a change :D
 
Yurt said:
tom must be smarting from that....

btw....one of those links does appear to have something to do with obama's eligibility...but WND's original claim is total horsehockey
Click to expand...

Tom hates being left twisting in the wind...you'd think he'd be used to it by now :)
 
Ice Dancer said:
You mean like summersong and your sexual innuendo about her servicing the guys in San Diego Tom? You really do yourself a disservice when you pretend some moral superiority.
Click to expand...

Since you are so determined to drag up the past, that was in response to her comments about having a small appendage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top