Scams, Hoaxes, Myths and Their Busters - Comments Page 2

I've read a couple comments here that are critical of Snopes.
I've found no website in existence more meticulous about exposing lies, deceit and misinformation than Snopes.
The one constant comment I hear from people who are uninterested in the real truth is 'Who's snoping Snopes?'
Also, they're not political at all. If you see politics in it, you're deceiving nobody but yourself.

Speaking to Don's post, I also found it ironic to see the "Trending Topics on the Web..." stories near the bottom of this web page. One choice topic, "7 Amazing Tricks to get ANY Woman Into Bed."

What I cannot speak to, but have wondered about is the relationship between the web page author and the ads like this which one so often sees. However, I assume the author has no control over what ads are shown by the internet ad gods. In any event the presence of the ads is ironic.

I too receive a steady stream of these types of forwards. I used to invest my time trying to educate the senders by sending them
comments from the Snopes website. Soon thereafter I began to receive replies such as Howard's about Snopes being inaccurate and having a political axe to grind, which I interpreted as "don't try to confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." It was then I decided to use my time more productively.

After reading the comments about "Trending Topics on the Web...", I looked for them. They are way past any information on the page.

If you find them offensive, do what I do - stop scrolling down when you get to the comment box. You'll never see them.

NOTE: Bob subscribes to an ad service. He has very little control over the ads they place on his site. At least Bob puts them at the bottom of the page where someone actually has to look for them.

Bob seems to have chosen a monetizing service that is heavily into the scam area.

If you preach against it, you might want to follow the preaching use an ad service that wasn't the sleaziest of any that I have seen on a site I go to for good information.

Hopefully, they pay you really good because if someone hasn't read much of your work, you might be judged by the "friends" you support.

1/29/16 Richard: The "Snopes" couple is diligent but not above bending over backwards to the point of toppling over in order to appear to be giving a balanced view. Sometimes they are just wrong. But they have to protect themselves from people with the power to tear down their credibility and render them useless to society. If you read between the lines, you can usually sort fact and fiction in their own debunking style. The first time I was shocked to see them caught in supporting a lie was with regard to Obama's 3/4/2007 claim during his speech in Selma, Alabama, that his Nov. 1960 conception was the direct result of inspiration coming from the 3/7/1965 March in Selma which hadn’t even happened yet, plus his mistakes concerning the timing of the 1960 role of the Kennedys in a 1959 Kenya-U.S. scholarship program that sent Obama, Sr., to the U.S. in 1959. I made the following public post on my Gloria Merle Huffman Facebook page (where you can see all the gory details): "Thu., 3/12/2015 2:08 am EDT – HUFFMAN GIVES FAILING GRADE TO SNOPES!" In defense of the Snopes couple, I would say it's a good idea to tread softly when researching the veracity of people in control of deadly killer drones that can target and destroy individuals like Osama bin Laden, LOL! I addressed another example of Snopes carefully crafting their debunking language in a way that misleads the casual reader in my 1/19/2016 6:02 am EST Facebook reply to a friend of mine. I had posted (Public) on my Gloria Merle Huffman page on Facebook an old article about the testimony of Darrell Scott, father of a young victim in the Columbine shooting: my post began "Mon., 1/18/2016 8:10 pm EST - Prayer reinstated April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School." Again, I went into exquisite detail in my reply to my friend Mike. Both of these examples involved President Obama (his speech and his gun control campaign), so they could be considered to be political, as "Howard" said, and the snopes.com slant did indeed agree with the mainstream media's policy of rubber-stamping the President and protecting the credibility of our Commander-in-Chief ([Power #2] whose credibility is essential for the integrity of our military [Power #3] and can only be officially undermined by citizens [Power #1] voting at the ballot box at election time).

Who cares what's at the bottom of this web page? They are ads...Not Bob's ads. No one has to look at anything they don't want to. I wonder how long they have been there...well I have not even noticed them. Great as always to read your newsletter Bob!

Lincoln couldn't have said that about the Internet. Everyone knows Al Gore invented the Internet in the 1990s.