Dumbest thing ever seen on snopes?

[Hawkeye-X]

Anyone? I'd love to hear a few..

[Sabriel]

1. I just used it yesterday

My mother floored me with the comment that Jane Fonda betrayed POWs in
Vietnam by turning their secretly passed notes over to their captors. What utter bullshit. Thank you, Snopes. I don't think my mom appreciated having her Fonda story debunked.... Tough.
Sabriel

[YellowRubberDuckie]

3. Um, that actually happened.

Sorry if you don't want to believe it, but that's why most people hate her. She helped get several people killed. I know way too many Vets who have heard her BS up close, and who knew people she helped kill. But she doesn't care. They were "baby killers" after all.

On edit: On snopes, it's marked TRUE. http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Duckie

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. Read the entire article

The bit about turning the papers to the NV captors (and another one) is FALSE. I wonder why they haven't marked the entry as "partially true" or something.

The most serious accusations in the piece quoted above -- that Fonda turned over slips of paper furtively given her by American POWS to the North Vietnamese and that several POWs were beaten to death as a result -- are proveably untrue. Those named in the inflammatory e-mail categorically deny the events they supposedly were part of.

"It's a figment of somebody's imagination," says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him. "I never met Jane Fonda."

The tale about a defiant serviceman who spit at Jane Fonda and is severely beaten as a result is often attributed to Air Force pilot Jerry Driscoll. He has repeatedly stated on the record that it did not originate with him.

[Dookus]

12. No

what's marked True is that she propagandized for the North. The "passing notes" part is clearly labeled a lie.

[patcox2]

2. Snopes being dumb, or the rumor dumb? They "debunked" the bin laden flight

Snopes "debunked" the secret saudi flights back in 1991. I wrote them an email with chapter and verse, mainstream press citations out the wazooo. They emailed me back, very snotty and condescending, saying that my sources were crap and they stood by their "debunking" of the Bin Laden evacuation.
They have since apologized.

But that was the dumbest thing snopes has ever done.

[TryingToWarnYou]

10. I have first hand experience with Snopesters...

The majority of them are assholes who seem to think they are better than everyone else and will make sure you know it.

For all the good Snopes does, they think their shit doesnt smell and thats fundamentally wrong.

[Dookus]

14. huh?

when he's wrong, he admits it and apologizes.

I think some people just get overly sensitive when their favorite lie is challenged. I'm grateful for snopes and other debunking sites that work to put truth over prejudice and ignorance.

[TryingToWarnYou]

37. You should visit their forums and try to discuss something....

If they have already made up their mind, then you are wasting your time regardless of your position or information.

[patcox2]

24. That describes the way they acted.

Really snide and condescending in their response to me. At the time, I had been an attorney for 14 years and was working as researcher for a congressional campaign, its not like I was some yahoo spouting made up shit, but the response I got was so superior (and wrong). The response came from the female half of the pair that I understand run the operation.

I did not write "1991" in my correspondence with them. It was 2001.

[TryingToWarnYou]

38. Sounds about right...

We are Snopes and our shit doesnt smell.

How dare you question us or try to inform us of anything that did not originate from our own blessed minds. :eyes:

[King Of Paperboys]

15. LOL

If you mean the secret Saudi flights and bin Laden in 2001, then no wonder they found you ridiculous. You said "1991" in your post above. I'm sure it will be edited before anyone reads this response, but it's there. I'm looking at it. And it's NOT a typo. Three out of four wrong digits is not a typo.

The fact that they apologized is to their credit, not to their detriment. Snopes shoots down a LOT of bullshit, and they do good research. They cite sources and they change their position when the facts don't fit the hypothesis. That's science, which is more than most news sources can say.

[patcox2]

25. Puhleeze, it was 2001 in what I wrote to them.

There are typos, and there are malaprops. I wrote to them about the 2001 bin laden family evacuation. The mistake I made, which I cannot correct as the edit period is over, is more of a malaprop than a typo. It happens. Have you been around for enough decades that that kind of mistake might happen with you?

Are you doubting that this happened simply because I wrote 1991 instead of 2001? Go look, for over a year they did have an article debunking the flights, and they did correct it (not exactly apologizing, more rationalizing and excusing themselves). I bet google cached it.

Anyway, it all being fact, I stand by the statement that it was the dumbest thing snopes ever did, and for all their supposed nuetrality, the vitriol in the reply I got makes me doubt them now. On the other hand, its probably not evidence of political bias, based on some of the replies here, it is probably that they are just arrogant and don't like to admit when they are wrong.

[Dookus]

26. that might make sense

except for the fact that Snopes was copiously apologetic regarding the issue you're talking about.

[patcox2]

27. Apologetic to Michael Moore, not about their mistake.

Their "apology" actually goes to incredible lengths to confuse and overly complicate the issue, so as to hide their mistake. Go here and comparehttp://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_08_31.html the original debunking and the "apology':

[Dookus]

29. umm... ok

they admitted they were wrong, apologized for it, and corrected the error. I don't see how that's indicative of a "my shit don't stink" attitude.

[patcox2]

33. You haven't seen their email to me.

And have you gone and read the so-called apology? Go to the link in the Tom Tomorrow article and read it. I have seen that kind of shit before, they act all humble, but when it comes to actuially admitting they were wrong they can't bring themselves to do it, they go to great lengths to overcomplicate the answer, in order to hide their prior inconsistency. Scholastic legalist obfuscation of the kind you get out of any good attorney who has been backed into a corner.

[Dookus]

34. I'm sorry

you didn't get a satisfactory apology, but that's not my responsibility.

I'm simply saying that Snopes is a worthwile site, and they are, in my view, properly apologetic when necessary and strive to publish the truth.

Your negative experience doesn't change the fact that Snopes is a godsend for people who like to oppose nonsense.

[King Of Paperboys]

35. OH MY GOD!

Barbara Mikkelson is practically GROVELING in that apology. What, EXACTLY do you want? Do you want her to apologize to you, personally? To anyone who may have accessed her site? To Truth, that elusive bitch-goddess?

Remind me never to piss you off. My saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong, I will fix my error, and admit it publicly" wouldn't be sufficient.

What, according to you, WOULD be sufficient?

[King Of Paperboys]

31. You know what?

I'm not doubting you because of that glaring error, an error which transcends millenia. I'm doubting you because the Mikkelsons (them people who run Snopes) are meticulous researchers, and they sift and search before they post. Do they make mistakes? Well, hell, EVERYBODY makes mistakes! Some mistakes are nore blatant than others...


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. This is a tenet of science, and it's a valuable rule of thumb. When you're dealing with a site like Snopes, which has literally thousands of posts debunking what is euphemistically known as "conventional wisdom," it's important to note that they are not only right more often than wrong, but right more often than anyone else. The Mikkelsons go to great pains to cite sources and speak to the parties involved in a given "myth," thereby lending much more verisimilitude to their stories than most so-called "news" sites.

I am sorry that you had the experience that you related above. I would not presume to know what the Mikkelsons were doing or thinking at that (or any other) time, but I can imagine they were rather busier than you and I were. Most so-called "news" outlets would never have acknowledged any error, claiming that they were dealing with "incomplete information." The fact that Snopes apologized speaks well of them, not ill.

There is no excuse for the arrogance of Snopesters, any more than there is for the arrogance of DUers. Nevertheless, anyone who expects it to change any time soon is fooling her or himself.

If I see a story on Snopes that is directly contradicted on MSNBC, I will believe what I read on Snopes 10 times out of 10, until I am given cause to believe otherwise.

[MisterP]

18. 2001

[King Of Paperboys]

21. Thank You MisterP

When it's edited later, I won't be considered crazy.

Well, I might, but not for that. For the other stuff.

[kiahzero]

30. In 1991, you say?

What bin Laden evacuation in 1991?

[patcox2]

32. Don't be ridiculous, you know what I meant.

nt

[Archae]

4. The far-right "Kerry and Fonda" connections.

I just reamed out another asshole, who is using the fake photo of Kerry and Fonda at a podium, to show "Kerry is a traitor."

Made him look like an ass in that forum, with the Snopes debunking.

Of course, this guy then went to the usual far-right tactic, personal attacks on me and calling Snopes "leftist."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. Snopes, leftist? You know what's sad?

Snopes may very well be one of the few remaining public resources that mention politics and are truly impartial. If anything, there is a very very slight right-wing bias -- but they honestly work on sticking to the facts.

For instance, they debunk slanders both against Clinton and against *.

[Archae]

7. Donchu know?

Anyone that debunks actually...GASP...says the rumors about Clinton or Kerry are fake, are COMMERNIST!

(Freeper mode off) :-)

[Iris]

22. slight right-wing bias?

Do you really think?

I've never noticed, but the stuff I'm looking to debunk is usually some really, really dumb right-wing drivel, so I may not have seen enough to know any better.

[johnnie]

9. Surprising........

"Of course, this guy then went to the usual far-right tactic, personal attacks on me and calling Snopes "leftist.""

I'm surprised this guy didn't go right for the "Clinton's dick" comeback. It's rare to hear a freeper defend themselves with something other than that.

[Beware the Beast Man]

8. The HIV-infested Hypodermic Needles hidden in Gas Pumps

Someone I work with sent me the e-mail, which sickened me, because it implies that people with HIV are vindictive because of their condition. I immediately typed it into the Snopes search engine and sho 'nuff, it's a hoax.

I sent a reply to her telling her not to believe everything she reads, along with this link:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/gaspump.htm

[King Of Paperboys]

11. You did half the right thing...

The other half is to send that link to everyone on that distribution list.

Our biggest problem is that the liars have more extensive email lists, and the truth doesn't seem to catch up. You and I can look at a story, see it for the blatant falsehood that it is, and ignore it or refute it... but only to the person who sent it. The key is to send TRUTH back up the chain as far as their shit-clogged system will allow.

[catzies]

17. Welcome to DU, King Of Paperboys!

:hi: "reply all" is a good thing.

[King Of Paperboys]

19. Thank you, catzies.

If there is one thing the King Of Paperboys understands, it's Information Distribution. :D

[TryingToWarnYou]

13. I work in IT and I get these a lot...

I get people sending out mass emails 'warning' everyone about things like this. I have to then do damage control and embarass the person who was ignorant enough to send out something like that.

Thats lots of fun, actually. :-)

[TrogL]

16. They don't believe in global warming

At least last time I looked

[MisterP]

20. or that Gitmo prisoners could possibly be innocent

after all, the man in the snappy uniform would never lie to us, would he?

[King Of Paperboys]

23. Oh, PLEASE!

I was just looking at the site! If there's a post there that implies that global warming is not genuine, or that prisoners at Gitmo are not being abused, I didn't see it.

More important... YOU DIDN'T CITE IT!

You do NOTHING for your credibility when you make statements that you cannot or will not support! If you have a beef with Snopes, CITE IT!

[patcox2]

28. Here's a link for you, bigshot; Tom Tomorrow covered the whole thing

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_08_31.html

Apparently, snopes does not allow google to cache their shit, but Tom Tomorrow copied the original article on his site, and compared it to the weasel-y semi retraction semi-apology excercise in obfuscation which snopes has substituted for their original article.

It is undeniably snopes' low point, no matter how much good they might do.

[King Of Paperboys]

36. OK

Same link you gave above. Says nothing about global warming or Gitmo, so you can refer to the discussion above, and stop trying to detract from the topic.

Whatever problems Snopes and the Mikkelsons have, obfuscation and misdirection are not among them. To offer this link when I was asking after global warming and Gitmo is deceitful and, frankly, a bit desperate. Strong arguements should be framed strongly.