O/T: Snopes

On Oct 31, 4:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2:58=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jo4hn wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:33:22 -0600, "Max" <[email protected]=
t>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>>news:[email protected]...
> > >>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > >>>>> [snipped for brevity]
> > >>>>>> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't =
hide
> > >>>>>> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>
> > >>>>> I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't =
know
> > >>>>> that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people si=
mply
> > >>>>> accept as such.
> > >>>> Okay. I just thought what you posted made it sound as if they had =
some
> > >>>> sort of political agenda, which they don't.
> > >>> Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.
>
> > >>> Max
>
> > >> Perhaps personally, but those with ethics are able to keep that
> > >> separate very easily.
>
> > > What does ethics have to do with politics. =A0All you McCainoids reme=
mber
> > > to vote early and often.
>
> > =A0 Yeah, ACORN has really helped with that on the Republican side --
> > registering the Dallas Cowboys front line in multiple states, the DEMOC=
RAT
> > Ohio secretary of state sitting on 200,000+ mismatched registrations an=
d
> > not sharing that with the county election judges, thus denying the elec=
tion
> > judges a tool to assure that DEMOCRATS don't cheat at the polls. =A0We =
all
> > know how the Republicans control Chicago machine politics and how "dead
> > people vote, vote early and vote often" Dayley was a Republican.
>
> > =A0 Unless your post was meant to be humorous shifting who really has a=
long
> > history of this kind of shenanigans, given the massive fraud that appea=
rs
> > to be in work to assure that the Marxist Obama wins this election, it's=
far
> > from funny.
>
> > > no agenda known,
> > > Sarah
>
> > =A0 I'll take no agenda over the agenda of a marxist whose own words ha=
ve
> > talked about "the fundamental flaw" of our constitution (and he's going=
to
> > swear to uphold and defend it?), the tragedy of the civil rights moveme=
nt
> > not addressing re-distributive remedies. =A0His agenda will destroy our
> > country as we know it, it's that simple. =A0With an Obama presidency an=
d a
> > Reid and Pelosi with solid majorities in the Senate and House, we will =
not
> > recognize our country by 2012.
>
> > =A0I certainly understand those who have voted democrat all their lives
> > planning to continue to vote democrat. =A0But this guy isn't your fathe=
r's
> > democrat -- he has an agenda and it isn't anything that supports the
> > liberties this country has enjoyed. =A0People voting for this guy are v=
oting
> > for a Saul Alinski styled marxist who is telling them what they want to
> > hear now in order to sieze power. =A0They are doing so with no real ide=
a of
> > where he stands, what he stands for, or what he intends to do. =A0McCai=
n is
> > closer to democrats like JFK and/or Truman than Obama. =A0
>
> > =A0 =A0The media has done its best to cover up his background and past =
comments.
> > Would the LA Times withold information like the tape they are holding a=
bout
> > Obama if it were about McCain instead? =A0We have the answer -- it's "n=
o".
> > They fought to have information unsealed and then disseminated it to be
> > used against Obama's Senate rival during Obama's Senate run. In so doin=
g,
> > they enabled Obama's defeat of his rival. =A0The media parachuted 300+
> > reporters into Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin after her selection for V=
P --
> > how much effort have they put into researching Obama's past and his vie=
ws?
> > The NPR interview from his 2001 appearance is chilling in his view of t=
he
> > constitution and redistribution:
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiivL4c_3pck>. =A0If a similar intervi=
ew were
> > found for McCain on some hot topic, this would be on every news station
> > 24-7 until November 4. =A0How much air time is this getting? This is Ob=
ama's
> > own words, his own viewpoints and it isn't that long ago -- he was way =
more
> > than 8 years old when he did this interview. How much is The One being
> > hounded by the press for explanation over this? =A0It seems that the pr=
ess
> > has humbly accepted the BS line from the campaign that this was "just a
> > comment over some esoteric constitutional court decisions" [this is not=
the
> > issue you seek, move along]. =A0How meekly would the media accept a sim=
ilar
> > explanation from the other side? =A0As bad as the media push for the De=
ms was
> > in 2006, this year it is exponentially worse. =A0There is no objectivit=
y from
> > the mainstream media at all in this election. =A0In 2006 all we were ex=
posed
> > to was "macaca" and Mark Foley e-mails with the Pelosi soundbite
> > of "culture of corruption". =A0This year, no words or coverage on the
> > continuing issue of William Jefferson (democrat - louisianna) and his
> > freezer full of cash, very little coverage of Murtha calling his
> > consituents racist, and no national interest in the case of Tim Mahoney
> > doing things much worse than Foley. =A0There's coverage, but not the
> > continuous coverage we suffered from in the Foley case.
>
> > --
> > If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>
> That's some pretty potent Kool-Aid there, Mark.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah. MJ's responses remind me of one of my favorite baseball movies:

CRASH DAVIS:

"Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a
woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that
the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I
believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a
constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated
hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening
your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I
believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. "


Excuse me, this is the quote that I was looking for:


CRASH DAVIS:

"C'mon Meat, throw me that weak-ass shit! "




BTW - excellent troll. All of the usual suspects are showing up,
along with a few schoolies from the boonies.





tom

"jbd in Denver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:whateveryoulike-
> [email protected]:
>
>
>
> Heck, I figured since it was written on the Internet....

.....Al Gore must have written it?

SteveP.

On Oct 31, 9:44=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I often see references towww.Snopesin the Wreck.
> I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
> outfit.
>
> Not so:
>
> ----------------
>
> THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
> SNOPES.com With Caution
>
> For the past few yearshttp://www.snopes.com/has positioned itself, or
> others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,
> claim and email.
>
> But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind
> snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big
> office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a
> mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
>
> To the best of my knowledge that was not a secret. I've known that for a
> long time. Apparently, for many people it was a secret.
>
> David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
> started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
> background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it
> gained popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral, but
> over the past couple of years people started asking questions; who was
> behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
>
> The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of
> snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions
> or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were
> criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to
> the 'true' bottom of various issues.
>
> A few months ago, State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a
> political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the
> internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this
> issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement
> they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into
> taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever' took place.
>
> Lt Colonel Ed Cathcart USMC (Ret), a customer and friend of Bud Gregg's
> contacted David Mikkelson (and Mikkelson replied back) thinking he would
> want to get to the bottom of this and gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone
> numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's
> at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him
> about it. He never called Bud. In fact, LTC Cathcart learned from Bud
> Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
> Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the
> issue as if they did all their research and got to the bottom of things!
>
> As I said, the mom and pop operation was not a secret to me. Here's what
> was the secret to me;
>
> It has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish - very Democratic (party)
> and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential
> election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that
> appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over
> the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism
> revealing itself in their website findings.
>
> So, everyone who goes tohttp://www.snopes.com/to get what they think
> to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says
> at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their
> references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
> Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself.
>
> It is apparent that that's all the Mikkelson's do.
>
> POSTED BY ICE CREAM SOLDIER AT 18:50



Yeah. I read Consumer Reports but they are often wrong about things
that I happen to know something about.

My question is - why do I keep reading them?




tom

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:31:33 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Oct 31, 1:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:44:07 -0400, Robatoy
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I often see references towww.Snopesin the Wreck.
>> >I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
>> >outfit.
>>
>> ANd YOUR agenda is?????????????
>>
>Keep your shirt on, okay? I'm a Canuckistani, I am not allowed an
>agenda.
I'm from north o' da border too.
Seems everyone south o' da border has an agenda

On Oct 31, 11:35=A0am, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard Evans wrote:
> > Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >>[snipped for brevity]
>
> >>>The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
> >>>anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>
> >>I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
> >>that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
> >>accept as such.
>
> > Much of what passers for authority on the Internet is suspect. Why
> > single out Snopes? And why did the fact that they are Jewish figure so
> > prominently in your denouncement?
>
> A quick google search shows that this message has been posted many times
> over the last few days at many different places. I doubt that Robatoy
> wrote the article.
>
> The Mikkelsons, as of yet, do not have it listed on their "Snopes" web
> site. =A0I'd like to hear what they have to say.
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> [email protected] Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



I guess we'll have to go on Snopes to find out.


tom

On Oct 31, 6:03=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> =A0 Yeah, I'm a bit passionate about this; I frankly like my liberty and =
would
> like to see that preserved. =A0

Yup, Bush preserved your liberty. Yup.

On Oct 31, 5:48=A0pm, Bob Haar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/31/08 12:45 PMOct 31, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Here we go again. *I* didn't write the article. You called it a
> > denouncement, I thought it was more of a heads-up.
>
> When it contaiins verbage like this

Contains verbiage like what?

Tom G wrote:

>
>>>>
>>> What does ethics have to do with politics. All you McCainoids remember
>>> to vote early and often.
>>
>> Yeah, ACORN has really helped with that on the Republican side --
>> registering the Dallas Cowboys front line in multiple states, the
>> DEMOCRAT Ohio secretary of state sitting on 200,000+ mismatched
>> registrations and not sharing that with the county election judges, thus
>> denying the election
>> judges a tool to assure that DEMOCRATS don't cheat at the polls. We all
>> know how the Republicans control Chicago machine politics and how "dead
>> people vote, vote early and vote often" Dayley was a Republican.
>
> Daley would roll over in his grave if he thought people remembered him as
> a
> "Republican". And ACORN would be be asked by the Democrats to give back
> the $800,000 they got to register Democrats if they had actually been
> registering, (fraud or no fraud) Republicans.
>
> PS> check Snopes :-)

Yeah, that was *very* tongue in cheek, driven by the comment for McCain
supporters to remember to vote early and vote often.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Oct 31, 5:12=A0pm, Randy Waldrep <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > I often see references towww.Snopesin the Wreck.
> > I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
> > outfit.
>
> > Not so:
>
> > ----------------
>
> > THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
> > SNOPES.com With Caution
>
> > For the past few yearshttp://www.snopes.com/has positioned itself, or
> > others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,
> > claim and email.
>
> > But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind
> > snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big
> > office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just =
a
> > mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
>
> > To the best of my knowledge that was not a secret. I've known that for =
a
> > long time. Apparently, for many people it was a secret.
>
> > David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
> > started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
> > background or experience in investigative research. After a few years i=
t
> > gained popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral, but
> > over the past couple of years people started asking questions; who was
> > behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
>
> > The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of
> > snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions
> > or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were
> > criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to
> > the 'true' bottom of various issues.
>
> > A few months ago, State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a
> > political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across th=
e
> > internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this
> > issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement
> > they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into
> > taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever' took place=
.
>
> > Lt Colonel Ed Cathcart USMC (Ret), a customer and friend of Bud Gregg's
> > contacted David Mikkelson (and Mikkelson replied back) thinking he woul=
d
> > want to get to the bottom of this and gave him Bud Gregg's contact phon=
e
> > numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's
> > at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him
> > about it. He never called Bud. In fact, LTC Cathcart learned from Bud
> > Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm=
.
> > Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the
> > issue as if they did all their research and got to the bottom of things=
!
>
> > As I said, the mom and pop operation was not a secret to me. Here's wha=
t
> > was the secret to me;
>
> > It has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish - very Democratic (party=
)
> > and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential
> > election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that
> > appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over
> > the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism
> > revealing itself in their website findings.
>
> > So, everyone who goes tohttp://www.snopes.com/to get what they think
> > to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says
> > at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their
> > references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
> > Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself.
>
> > It is apparent that that's all the Mikkelson's do.
>
> > POSTED BY ICE CREAM SOLDIER AT 18:50
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Update at the bottom of the page
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chicken.asp

Thanks for the update, but guess what? You completely missed the
point.
I don't give a rat's ass about some State Farm schmuck.
All I did was point out that Snopes isn't The Gospel. Period.

You see, there are people who frequent this bar, who insist on quoting
Snopes when it suits them.
All I did was let the air out of their tires.
Not complicated.


r

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:02:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Watson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 31, 9:44 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I often see references towww.Snopesin the Wreck.
>>> I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
>>> outfit.
>>>
>>> Not so:
>>>
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
>>> SNOPES.com With Caution
>>>
>>> For the past few yearshttp://www.snopes.com/has positioned itself, or
>>> others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,
>>> claim and email.
>>>
>>> But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind
>>> snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big
>>> office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a
>>> mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge that was not a secret. I've known that for a
>>> long time. Apparently, for many people it was a secret.
>>>
>>> David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
>>> started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
>>> background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it
>>> gained popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral, but
>>> over the past couple of years people started asking questions; who was
>>> behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
>>>
>>> The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of
>>> snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions
>>> or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were
>>> criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to
>>> the 'true' bottom of various issues.
>>>
>>> A few months ago, State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a
>>> political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the
>>> internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this
>>> issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement
>>> they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into
>>> taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever' took place.
>>>
>>> Lt Colonel Ed Cathcart USMC (Ret), a customer and friend of Bud Gregg's
>>> contacted David Mikkelson (and Mikkelson replied back) thinking he would
>>> want to get to the bottom of this and gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone
>>> numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's
>>> at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him
>>> about it. He never called Bud. In fact, LTC Cathcart learned from Bud
>>> Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
>>> Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the
>>> issue as if they did all their research and got to the bottom of things!
>>>
>>> As I said, the mom and pop operation was not a secret to me. Here's what
>>> was the secret to me;
>>>
>>> It has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish - very Democratic (party)
>>> and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential
>>> election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that
>>> appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over
>>> the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism
>>> revealing itself in their website findings.
>>>
>>> So, everyone who goes tohttp://www.snopes.com/to get what they think
>>> to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says
>>> at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their
>>> references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
>>> Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself.
>>>
>>> It is apparent that that's all the Mikkelson's do.
>>>
>>> POSTED BY ICE CREAM SOLDIER AT 18:50
>>
>>
>>
>>Yeah. I read Consumer Reports but they are often wrong about things
>>that I happen to know something about.
>>
>>My question is - why do I keep reading them?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>tom
>>
>
>Because it's the only way to keep your blood pressure up?


"...you see what you want to see; you hear what you want to hear."

(The Rockman, "The Point," $5 to Harry Nillson)

cg

On 10/31/08 12:45 PMOct 31, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Here we go again. *I* didn't write the article. You called it a
> denouncement, I thought it was more of a heads-up.

When it contaiins verbage like this

[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:33:22 -0600, "Max" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> [snipped for brevity]
>>>>> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
>>>>> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>>>>>
>>>> I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
>>>> that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
>>>> accept as such.
>>> Okay. I just thought what you posted made it sound as if they had some
>>> sort of political agenda, which they don't.
>> Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.
>>
>> Max
>
> Perhaps personally, but those with ethics are able to keep that
> separate very easily.
>
What does ethics have to do with politics. All you McCainoids remember
to vote early and often.
no agenda known,
Sarah

"jo4hn" wrote

> What does ethics have to do with politics. All you McCainoids remember to
> vote early and often.

So, when you die make sure you're buried in Texas so you can remain
politically active, wot?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I often see references to www.Snopes in the Wreck.
> I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
> outfit.
>
> Not so:
>
> ----------------
>
> THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
> SNOPES.com With Caution
>
> For the past few years http://www.snopes.com/ has positioned itself, or
> others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,
> claim and email.

It is an election year, and either way the presidency goes, it'll be one for
the history books. What better time to question the authenticity of
information? There are rumors, urban legends, lies, damned lies, and then
politicians and theologians. For the latter two, not necessarily in that
order. Urban legends would be the domain for snopes. Looking there for
larger truths would be a misguided exercise in futility.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>[snipped for brevity]
>>>
>>> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
>>> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>>>
>>
>>I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
>>that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
>>accept as such.
>
> Okay. I just thought what you posted made it sound as if they had some
> sort of political agenda, which they don't.

Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.

Max

>>>
>> What does ethics have to do with politics. All you McCainoids remember
>> to vote early and often.
>
> Yeah, ACORN has really helped with that on the Republican side --
> registering the Dallas Cowboys front line in multiple states, the DEMOCRAT
> Ohio secretary of state sitting on 200,000+ mismatched registrations and
> not sharing that with the county election judges, thus denying the
> election
> judges a tool to assure that DEMOCRATS don't cheat at the polls. We all
> know how the Republicans control Chicago machine politics and how "dead
> people vote, vote early and vote often" Dayley was a Republican.

Daley would roll over in his grave if he thought people remembered him as a
"Republican". And ACORN would be be asked by the Democrats to give back the
$800,000 they got to register Democrats if they had actually been
registering, (fraud or no fraud) Republicans.

PS> check Snopes :-)

jo4hn wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>
> [massive bandwidth snip]
>
> Sweet Jesus Mark. Thank you for posting this stuff yet one more time.
> Conspiracy theories can be lots of fun but all this dreck coming not
> only here but from others with whom I correspond, is long since boring.

Wish it was conspiracy theory, unfortunately, them's his own words in his
own voice. Did you even listen to the link?

> Surely a person with your imagination can come up with some bogus
> theories regarding McCain. I do sincerely hope that this stuff stops
> with the election. But then, should Obama be elected president of OUR
> country, I doubt it.

After the re-institution of the new "fairness" doctrine? Who knows what
any of us are going to be allowed to say and where.

>
> Apologizing in advance for annoyance, I remain
> yours truly,
> jo4hn
>
> p.s. Please count to 1000 before replying.

How far did you get before replying?

Yeah, I'm a bit passionate about this; I frankly like my liberty and would
like to see that preserved. I don't need to concoct any kind of conspiracy
theories to see the threat to both liberty and the lack of fair press.
After all of the bleating regarding the Patriot act to prevent terrorism,
where is the 24/7 outrage over government employee use of government
database computers to dig up dirt on Joe the Plumber? *That's* frightening
stuff and that's real police state tactics. Where's the ACLU? I guess
they are too busy at Gitmo trying to free terrorists who were shooting at
our troops.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:whateveryoulike-
[email protected]:



Heck, I figured since it was written on the Internet....
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in news:386dff40-59d7-4be2-88bc-
[email protected]:

>>
>> It is apparent that that's all the Mikkelson's do.
>>
>
> Yeah. I read Consumer Reports but they are often wrong about things
> that I happen to know something about.
>
> My question is - why do I keep reading them?
>

I believe there are Jews working for Consumer Reports, too.

Notice a pattern?

Scott

On Oct 31, 11:11=A0am, Richard Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Oct 31, 10:06=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> >[snipped for brevity]
>
> >> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
> >> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>
> >I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
> >that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
> >accept as such.
>
> Much of what passers for authority on the Internet is suspect. Why
> single out Snopes? And why did the fact that they are Jewish figure so
> prominently in your denouncement?

Here we go again. *I* didn't write the article. You called it a
denouncement, I thought it was more of a heads-up.

But, in all fairness, it was silly for anybody to assume that left-
wing liberal Jews would have an agenda. Or right-wing fascist Jews
would have an agenda. Or left-wing Dutchmen, or right-wing
Bulgarians.....or...

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: "jo4hn" wrote
:
: > What does ethics have to do with politics. All you McCainoids
remember to
: > vote early and often.
:
: So, when you die make sure you're buried in Texas so you can remain
: politically active, wot?

Preferably Duval County. George Parr still voting?

Dave in Houston

On Oct 31, 1:58=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:44:07 -0400, Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I often see references towww.Snopesin the Wreck.
> >I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
> >outfit.
>
> ANd YOUR agenda is?????????????
>
Keep your shirt on, okay? I'm a Canuckistani, I am not allowed an
agenda.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:42:09 -0700, jo4hn <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:33:22 -0600, "Max" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> [snipped for brevity]
>>>>>> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
>>>>>> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
>>>>> that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
>>>>> accept as such.
>>>> Okay. I just thought what you posted made it sound as if they had some
>>>> sort of political agenda, which they don't.
>>> Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.
>>>
>>> Max
>>
>> Perhaps personally, but those with ethics are able to keep that
>> separate very easily.
>>
>What does ethics have to do with politics.

???

On Oct 31, 2:58=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:33:22 -0600, "Max" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> [snipped for brevity]
> >>>>>> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hi=
de
> >>>>>> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>
> >>>>> I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't kn=
ow
> >>>>> that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simp=
ly
> >>>>> accept as such.
> >>>> Okay. I just thought what you posted made it sound as if they had so=
me
> >>>> sort of political agenda, which they don't.
> >>> Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.
>
> >>> Max
>
> >> Perhaps personally, but those with ethics are able to keep that
> >> separate very easily.
>
> > What does ethics have to do with politics. =A0All you McCainoids rememb=
er
> > to vote early and often.
>
> =A0 Yeah, ACORN has really helped with that on the Republican side --
> registering the Dallas Cowboys front line in multiple states, the DEMOCRA=
T
> Ohio secretary of state sitting on 200,000+ mismatched registrations and
> not sharing that with the county election judges, thus denying the electi=
on
> judges a tool to assure that DEMOCRATS don't cheat at the polls. =A0We al=
l
> know how the Republicans control Chicago machine politics and how "dead
> people vote, vote early and vote often" Dayley was a Republican.
>
> =A0 Unless your post was meant to be humorous shifting who really has a l=
ong
> history of this kind of shenanigans, given the massive fraud that appears
> to be in work to assure that the Marxist Obama wins this election, it's f=
ar
> from funny.
>
> > no agenda known,
> > Sarah
>
> =A0 I'll take no agenda over the agenda of a marxist whose own words have
> talked about "the fundamental flaw" of our constitution (and he's going t=
o
> swear to uphold and defend it?), the tragedy of the civil rights movement
> not addressing re-distributive remedies. =A0His agenda will destroy our
> country as we know it, it's that simple. =A0With an Obama presidency and =
a
> Reid and Pelosi with solid majorities in the Senate and House, we will no=
t
> recognize our country by 2012.
>
> =A0I certainly understand those who have voted democrat all their lives
> planning to continue to vote democrat. =A0But this guy isn't your father'=
s
> democrat -- he has an agenda and it isn't anything that supports the
> liberties this country has enjoyed. =A0People voting for this guy are vot=
ing
> for a Saul Alinski styled marxist who is telling them what they want to
> hear now in order to sieze power. =A0They are doing so with no real idea =
of
> where he stands, what he stands for, or what he intends to do. =A0McCain =
is
> closer to democrats like JFK and/or Truman than Obama. =A0
>
> =A0 =A0The media has done its best to cover up his background and past co=
mments.
> Would the LA Times withold information like the tape they are holding abo=
ut
> Obama if it were about McCain instead? =A0We have the answer -- it's "no"=
.
> They fought to have information unsealed and then disseminated it to be
> used against Obama's Senate rival during Obama's Senate run. In so doing,
> they enabled Obama's defeat of his rival. =A0The media parachuted 300+
> reporters into Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin after her selection for VP =
--
> how much effort have they put into researching Obama's past and his views=
?
> The NPR interview from his 2001 appearance is chilling in his view of the
> constitution and redistribution:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiivL4c_3pck>. =A0If a similar interview=
were
> found for McCain on some hot topic, this would be on every news station
> 24-7 until November 4. =A0How much air time is this getting? This is Obam=
a's
> own words, his own viewpoints and it isn't that long ago -- he was way mo=
re
> than 8 years old when he did this interview. How much is The One being
> hounded by the press for explanation over this? =A0It seems that the pres=
s
> has humbly accepted the BS line from the campaign that this was "just a
> comment over some esoteric constitutional court decisions" [this is not t=
he
> issue you seek, move along]. =A0How meekly would the media accept a simil=
ar
> explanation from the other side? =A0As bad as the media push for the Dems=
was
> in 2006, this year it is exponentially worse. =A0There is no objectivity =
from
> the mainstream media at all in this election. =A0In 2006 all we were expo=
sed
> to was "macaca" and Mark Foley e-mails with the Pelosi soundbite
> of "culture of corruption". =A0This year, no words or coverage on the
> continuing issue of William Jefferson (democrat - louisianna) and his
> freezer full of cash, very little coverage of Murtha calling his
> consituents racist, and no national interest in the case of Tim Mahoney
> doing things much worse than Foley. =A0There's coverage, but not the
> continuous coverage we suffered from in the Foley case.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

That's some pretty potent Kool-Aid there, Mark.

On Oct 31, 10:06=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>
> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>

I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
accept as such.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>
[massive bandwidth snip]

Sweet Jesus Mark. Thank you for posting this stuff yet one more time.
Conspiracy theories can be lots of fun but all this dreck coming not
only here but from others with whom I correspond, is long since boring.
Surely a person with your imagination can come up with some bogus
theories regarding McCain. I do sincerely hope that this stuff stops
with the election. But then, should Obama be elected president of OUR
country, I doubt it.

Apologizing in advance for annoyance, I remain
yours truly,
jo4hn

p.s. Please count to 1000 before replying.

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>[snipped for brevity]
>>
>> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
>> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>>
>
>I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
>that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
>accept as such.

Much of what passers for authority on the Internet is suspect. Why
single out Snopes? And why did the fact that they are Jewish figure so
prominently in your denouncement?

jo4hn wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:33:22 -0600, "Max" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> [snipped for brevity]
>>>>>> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
>>>>>> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
>>>>> that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
>>>>> accept as such.
>>>> Okay. I just thought what you posted made it sound as if they had some
>>>> sort of political agenda, which they don't.
>>> Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.
>>>
>>> Max
>>
>> Perhaps personally, but those with ethics are able to keep that
>> separate very easily.
>>
> What does ethics have to do with politics. All you McCainoids remember
> to vote early and often.

Yeah, ACORN has really helped with that on the Republican side --
registering the Dallas Cowboys front line in multiple states, the DEMOCRAT
Ohio secretary of state sitting on 200,000+ mismatched registrations and
not sharing that with the county election judges, thus denying the election
judges a tool to assure that DEMOCRATS don't cheat at the polls. We all
know how the Republicans control Chicago machine politics and how "dead
people vote, vote early and vote often" Dayley was a Republican.

Unless your post was meant to be humorous shifting who really has a long
history of this kind of shenanigans, given the massive fraud that appears
to be in work to assure that the Marxist Obama wins this election, it's far
from funny.

> no agenda known,
> Sarah

I'll take no agenda over the agenda of a marxist whose own words have
talked about "the fundamental flaw" of our constitution (and he's going to
swear to uphold and defend it?), the tragedy of the civil rights movement
not addressing re-distributive remedies. His agenda will destroy our
country as we know it, it's that simple. With an Obama presidency and a
Reid and Pelosi with solid majorities in the Senate and House, we will not
recognize our country by 2012.

I certainly understand those who have voted democrat all their lives
planning to continue to vote democrat. But this guy isn't your father's
democrat -- he has an agenda and it isn't anything that supports the
liberties this country has enjoyed. People voting for this guy are voting
for a Saul Alinski styled marxist who is telling them what they want to
hear now in order to sieze power. They are doing so with no real idea of
where he stands, what he stands for, or what he intends to do. McCain is
closer to democrats like JFK and/or Truman than Obama.

The media has done its best to cover up his background and past comments.
Would the LA Times withold information like the tape they are holding about
Obama if it were about McCain instead? We have the answer -- it's "no".
They fought to have information unsealed and then disseminated it to be
used against Obama's Senate rival during Obama's Senate run. In so doing,
they enabled Obama's defeat of his rival. The media parachuted 300+
reporters into Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin after her selection for VP --
how much effort have they put into researching Obama's past and his views?
The NPR interview from his 2001 appearance is chilling in his view of the
constitution and redistribution:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck>. If a similar interview were
found for McCain on some hot topic, this would be on every news station
24-7 until November 4. How much air time is this getting? This is Obama's
own words, his own viewpoints and it isn't that long ago -- he was way more
than 8 years old when he did this interview. How much is The One being
hounded by the press for explanation over this? It seems that the press
has humbly accepted the BS line from the campaign that this was "just a
comment over some esoteric constitutional court decisions" [this is not the
issue you seek, move along]. How meekly would the media accept a similar
explanation from the other side? As bad as the media push for the Dems was
in 2006, this year it is exponentially worse. There is no objectivity from
the mainstream media at all in this election. In 2006 all we were exposed
to was "macaca" and Mark Foley e-mails with the Pelosi soundbite
of "culture of corruption". This year, no words or coverage on the
continuing issue of William Jefferson (democrat - louisianna) and his
freezer full of cash, very little coverage of Murtha calling his
consituents racist, and no national interest in the case of Tim Mahoney
doing things much worse than Foley. There's coverage, but not the
continuous coverage we suffered from in the Foley case.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Oct 31, 11:01=A0am, jbd in Denver <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:whateveryoulike-
> [email protected]:
>
> Heck, I figured since it was written on the Internet....


LOL.. there ya go...

Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:33:22 -0600, "Max"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.
>>
>> Max
>
> Speak for yourself, Max.
>
> When you say "Everybody", you're including me and you have no basis
> for that assertion.

Or perhaps you just aren't aware of your agenda?


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>[snipped for brevity]
>>
>> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
>> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>>
>
>I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
>that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
>accept as such.

Okay. I just thought what you posted made it sound as if they had some
sort of political agenda, which they don't.

Robatoy wrote:
> I often see references to www.Snopes in the Wreck.
> I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
> outfit.
>
> Not so:
>
> ----------------
>
> THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
> SNOPES.com With Caution
>
> For the past few years http://www.snopes.com/ has positioned itself, or
> others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,
> claim and email.
>
> But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind
> snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big
> office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a
> mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
>
> To the best of my knowledge that was not a secret. I've known that for a
> long time. Apparently, for many people it was a secret.
>
> David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
> started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
> background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it
> gained popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral, but
> over the past couple of years people started asking questions; who was
> behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
>
> The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of
> snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions
> or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were
> criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to
> the 'true' bottom of various issues.
>
> A few months ago, State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a
> political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the
> internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this
> issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement
> they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into
> taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever' took place.
>
> Lt Colonel Ed Cathcart USMC (Ret), a customer and friend of Bud Gregg's
> contacted David Mikkelson (and Mikkelson replied back) thinking he would
> want to get to the bottom of this and gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone
> numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's
> at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him
> about it. He never called Bud. In fact, LTC Cathcart learned from Bud
> Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
> Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the
> issue as if they did all their research and got to the bottom of things!
>
> As I said, the mom and pop operation was not a secret to me. Here's what
> was the secret to me;
>
> It has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish - very Democratic (party)
> and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential
> election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that
> appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over
> the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism
> revealing itself in their website findings.
>
> So, everyone who goes to http://www.snopes.com/ to get what they think
> to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says
> at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their
> references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
> Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself.
>
> It is apparent that that's all the Mikkelson's do.
>
> POSTED BY ICE CREAM SOLDIER AT 18:50

----------------------------------------
Update at the bottom of the page

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chicken.asp

">
> Much of what passers for authority on the Internet is suspect. Why
> single out Snopes? And why did the fact that they are Jewish figure so
> prominently in your denouncement?

It looks to me like he singled out Snopes because he was passing on
information about a specific site not making a general comment. The facts
about the operators of Snopes being liberal Democrats and Jews was a bit of
profiling to let the reader know something about the operators I don't see
denouncement in the OP just information some useful some not. If anything
it might be said that it was information on the leanings of the operators of
Snopes. If he had said that they were Conservative Baptists and Republicans
you would expect then to have certain views that would color their outlook,
any other subculture group would have it's own outlook on any subject.
Don't get your knickers in a knot over it, it's not worth it.

I thought it was interesting that being Jewish they support Obama since most
of the Jews I know can't stand the man, but each to his own I guess.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:33:22 -0600, "Max" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.
>
>Max

Speak for yourself, Max.

When you say "Everybody", you're including me and you have no basis
for that assertion.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Richard Evans wrote:

> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>[snipped for brevity]
>>
>>>The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
>>>anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>>>
>>
>>I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
>>that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
>>accept as such.
>
>
> Much of what passers for authority on the Internet is suspect. Why
> single out Snopes? And why did the fact that they are Jewish figure so
> prominently in your denouncement?

A quick google search shows that this message has been posted many times
over the last few days at many different places. I doubt that Robatoy
wrote the article.

The Mikkelsons, as of yet, do not have it listed on their "Snopes" web
site. I'd like to hear what they have to say.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:44:07 -0400, Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I often see references to www.Snopes in the Wreck.
>I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
>outfit.
>
>Not so:
>
>----------------
>
>THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
>SNOPES.com With Caution
>
>For the past few years http://www.snopes.com/ has positioned itself, or
>others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,
>claim and email.
>
>But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind
>snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big
>office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a
>mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
>
>To the best of my knowledge that was not a secret. I've known that for a
>long time. Apparently, for many people it was a secret.
>
>David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
>started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
>background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it
>gained popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral, but
>over the past couple of years people started asking questions; who was
>behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
>
>The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of
>snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions
>or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were
>criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to
>the 'true' bottom of various issues.
>
>A few months ago, State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a
>political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the
>internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this
>issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement
>they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into
>taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever' took place.
>
>Lt Colonel Ed Cathcart USMC (Ret), a customer and friend of Bud Gregg's
>contacted David Mikkelson (and Mikkelson replied back) thinking he would
>want to get to the bottom of this and gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone
>numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's
>at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him
>about it. He never called Bud. In fact, LTC Cathcart learned from Bud
>Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
>Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the
>issue as if they did all their research and got to the bottom of things!
>
>As I said, the mom and pop operation was not a secret to me. Here's what
>was the secret to me;
>
>It has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish - very Democratic (party)
>and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential
>election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that
>appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over
>the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism
>revealing itself in their website findings.
>
>So, everyone who goes to http://www.snopes.com/ to get what they think
>to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says
>at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their
>references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
>Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself.
>
>It is apparent that that's all the Mikkelson's do.
>
>POSTED BY ICE CREAM SOLDIER AT 18:50

The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not. Here are just two of
the items from the FAQ portion of the site:

Q: Who creates the material for this site?

A: With very few exceptions, all of the material on this site is
prepared by the same people who operate this site, Barbara and David
Mikkelson.

Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate?

A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on
any topic, which is why our site's name indicates that it contains
/reference/ pages. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who
create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are
forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research
materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are
listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so
that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may
check those sources for themselves.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Watson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Oct 31, 9:44 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I often see references towww.Snopesin the Wreck.
>> I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
>> outfit.
>>
>> Not so:
>>
>> ----------------
>>
>> THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
>> SNOPES.com With Caution
>>
>> For the past few yearshttp://www.snopes.com/has positioned itself, or
>> others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,
>> claim and email.
>>
>> But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind
>> snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big
>> office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a
>> mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge that was not a secret. I've known that for a
>> long time. Apparently, for many people it was a secret.
>>
>> David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
>> started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
>> background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it
>> gained popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral, but
>> over the past couple of years people started asking questions; who was
>> behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
>>
>> The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of
>> snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions
>> or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were
>> criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to
>> the 'true' bottom of various issues.
>>
>> A few months ago, State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a
>> political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the
>> internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this
>> issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement
>> they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into
>> taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever' took place.
>>
>> Lt Colonel Ed Cathcart USMC (Ret), a customer and friend of Bud Gregg's
>> contacted David Mikkelson (and Mikkelson replied back) thinking he would
>> want to get to the bottom of this and gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone
>> numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's
>> at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him
>> about it. He never called Bud. In fact, LTC Cathcart learned from Bud
>> Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
>> Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the
>> issue as if they did all their research and got to the bottom of things!
>>
>> As I said, the mom and pop operation was not a secret to me. Here's what
>> was the secret to me;
>>
>> It has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish - very Democratic (party)
>> and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential
>> election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that
>> appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over
>> the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism
>> revealing itself in their website findings.
>>
>> So, everyone who goes tohttp://www.snopes.com/to get what they think
>> to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says
>> at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their
>> references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
>> Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself.
>>
>> It is apparent that that's all the Mikkelson's do.
>>
>> POSTED BY ICE CREAM SOLDIER AT 18:50
>
>
>
>Yeah. I read Consumer Reports but they are often wrong about things
>that I happen to know something about.
>
>My question is - why do I keep reading them?
>
>
>
>
>tom
>

Because it's the only way to keep your blood pressure up?
>

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:44:07 -0400, Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I often see references to www.Snopes in the Wreck.
>I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
>outfit.
>


ANd YOUR agenda is?????????????
>Not so:
>
>----------------
>
>THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
>SNOPES.com With Caution
>
>For the past few years http://www.snopes.com/ has positioned itself, or
>others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,
>claim and email.
>
>But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind
>snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big
>office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a
>mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
>
>To the best of my knowledge that was not a secret. I've known that for a
>long time. Apparently, for many people it was a secret.
>
>David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
>started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
>background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it
>gained popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral, but
>over the past couple of years people started asking questions; who was
>behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?
>
>The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of
>snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions
>or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were
>criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to
>the 'true' bottom of various issues.
>
>A few months ago, State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a
>political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the
>internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this
>issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement
>they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into
>taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever' took place.
>
>Lt Colonel Ed Cathcart USMC (Ret), a customer and friend of Bud Gregg's
>contacted David Mikkelson (and Mikkelson replied back) thinking he would
>want to get to the bottom of this and gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone
>numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's
>at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him
>about it. He never called Bud. In fact, LTC Cathcart learned from Bud
>Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
>Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the
>issue as if they did all their research and got to the bottom of things!
>
>As I said, the mom and pop operation was not a secret to me. Here's what
>was the secret to me;
>
>It has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish - very Democratic (party)
>and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential
>election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that
>appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over
>the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism
>revealing itself in their website findings.
>
>So, everyone who goes to http://www.snopes.com/ to get what they think
>to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says
>at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their
>references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
>Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself.
>
>It is apparent that that's all the Mikkelson's do.
>
>POSTED BY ICE CREAM SOLDIER AT 18:50

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:33:22 -0600, "Max" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 31, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>[snipped for brevity]
>>>>
>>>> The Mikkelsons are very upfront about their website. They don't hide
>>>> anyting, or pretend to be anything they are not.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I know that and you know that. This post was for those who don't know
>>>that Snopes is not the authority on the truth that some people simply
>>>accept as such.
>>
>> Okay. I just thought what you posted made it sound as if they had some
>> sort of political agenda, which they don't.
>
>Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.
>
>Max

Perhaps personally, but those with ethics are able to keep that
separate very easily.