>> everyone was siting snopes as their reliable source of information. Which seems outlandish to me. <<
Note that in this instance, it shouldn't be outlandish that Yarin did considering the rest of his post. Also note that I only did in this case because Yarin implied with his post that snopes is reputable, so using snopes to rebut a separate point would seem to be difficult for him to refute (assuming he was approaching the topic from a rational perspective - a very suspect assumption).
Despite that, though, I don't see the problem with using snopes. I find it to be a very good source of information because it explains in objective detail how it comes to its conclusions and provides references to back up the claims made on its various pages allowing the reader to continue the research himself should he so desire. That's what I'd want in a fact-checking website.
And a very good comeback it was.
You got me. ;)
About snopes, I only linked to it because that's the link I was given to by a friend. I don't determine the validity of everything based on snope, I just find it to be 'moderatly reliable'.
EDIT: By the way, what makes you think it's moderately reliable? Something they say? You happen to read Obama books? Or, have you ever been sexually harassed by the whole Muslim population? Or... is it you just think it is moderately reliable because it looks moderately reliable?
Have you been harassed by the whole muslim population? Must've taken a long time, I mean, it's the second largest religion in the world and all. That's even worse than waiting in the...waiting room, at your doc's office. Although I actually felt sexually harassed last time I was at my doctor's office (made me do the coughing thing), but probably not as harassed as you felt by the whole muslim population.
BTW, the snopes article linked to by Yarin was accurate (or certainly appears so). It was Yarin's interpretation and comprehension that was lacking.
oh look, it's Yarin's mom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwjlUMoLVvA
It isn't snope's "job" to condemn or support a given position. They are simply trying to weed out the false rumors from the true ones.
>> Yes, precisely what the author of said article meant.
That's accuracy for you. <<
I don't understand this post. It seems like sarcasm, but I don't get it. Could you clarify what you're trying to say?
- Where's the sources of the pictures?
- Where's the links to the articles?
- Why they have a script not enabling you to copy/paste text?
- What's weeding out false rumors with quotes such as "Why would anyone think we should be at war with such nice, peaceful Moslems!?"
Weeding out false rumors is not what snopes.com ever did. I'm even surprised why anyone gives that BS of a website any consideration.
As for this one in particular it's just yet another lame article about a bunch of radical Moslem protesters who represent a tiny fraction of the entire population. As if we didn't see enough of that. Want to see placards inciting violence, murder and death in a rally? You don't need Moslems for that. That's plenty of that a little all around the world. Give me a fruking break.
>> What's weeding out false rumors with quotes such as "Why would anyone think we should be at war with such nice, peaceful Moslems!?" <<
I think you're just confused. Do you realize that everything in green is the quoted text of whatever they are debunking or verifying? In this case, the quote was from an email collected in 2006, not from snopes. The rest of the article (on white background) is snopes' assessment of the truth of that email and others like it.
Look what was the bloody rumor?Quote:
Stop trying to be an offended jerk like always.
That people protested on the outset of the cartoons? That those people protesting had placards inciting violence? Are you people kidding me? This is not a rumor. It aired all over the world.
Why is it being treated like a rumor when I saw those bloody images for at least two full weeks on public television? And saw those images on all newspapers I care to read (including two renowned American newspapers?)
What rumor? At least give rumor a good name!
And stop offending me like a jerk. If you don't get what I'm saying, ask.
What's the source of the email? Was it spam mail? How many people do they think received these kind of emails? Why was it considered a rumor?Quote:
the quote was from an email collected in 2006
What I argue is the fact most of what that website does is fake rumors. Rumors that never existed but are made as such. It's the worst kind of "rumors".