"Snopes is a hoax." Email from a wingnut.

[DemoTex]

Snopes.com is not giving the whole story!

I always suspected David and Barbara Mikkelson who were behind "Snopes" were Obama and liberal oriented --now we know!!

Who watches the watchers?

Please read it all to the bottom!

Guess we have to use "Truth or Fiction" now .

For the past few years 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

Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding . Well, finally we know . 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 .

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 believing 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, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obamaand 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 .

I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this an d I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers a 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, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm . Yet, snopes.com http://snopes.com/ issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are 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 web site findings .
Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to 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 now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do .

After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

I have found this to be true also!

Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False . . . . Then they gave their Liberal slant . . . . !!! I have suspected some problems with s nopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths . If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder . www.truthorfiction.com A better source for verification, in my opinion .

I have recently discovered that Snopes . com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things . So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes . com . . . . ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore .

A few conservatives told me& nbsp; about snopes.com a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true .

Well, I found out for myself that it is true .

Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes . com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well .

Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual .

We need to make sure everyone is aware: that Snopes is a hoax in itself .

Man, those freepers are more paranoid than I thought.

[truebrit71]

1. I love the irony of using Wikipedia to verify the accuracy of anything..

..:rofl:

[WriteDown]

3. They are the true investigative team.

:eyes:

[JPZenger]

18. Here's the refutation from urbanlegends, a competing site

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm

[WriteDown]

2. This doesn't hold up at all...

Here are just two examples of Snopes "liberal" bias. :eyes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/crossed.asp

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Automatic gainsay doesn't invalidate Snopes.

Contrary provable empirical evidence would.

[sufrommich]

5. When the facts are against you, attack the facts.

That has been the republican motto since Reagan.

[Catshrink]

7. Or just make shit up.

They do that very well, too.

[NJmaverick]

6. Seeing how the right wingnuts are responsible for 90% of the lies sent via email

I could see why they would hate a website like Snopes. It makes it harder for them to pass off their lies and perpetrate their deceptions.

[Bigmack]

11. Why?

Right now, snopes has 200 Obama rumors that are false.

Why do they do that? Seriously, how can people just make shit up, circulate it, and still think they own the moral high ground? It's not just a different view of some issue or person, it's spun into whole cloth... from nothing. That's downright sociopathic.

I pride myself on having a very flexible morality, but I could not make up a lie and post it on the web, but then again, I couldn't do any of the shit the banksters or brokesters do, either.

[NJmaverick]

15. They do it for the same reason people send spam

you play the percentages. While 90% (I am being generous) may see through the lies you do gain the other 10%. Since the right is generally lacking in morals tactic no matter how immoral or unethical is fair game as long as it benefits their cause.

[Richardo]

8. Well, that was inevitable I suppose.

They hate being told they are full of shit, over and over and over again.

Reality and that liberal bias - how can you fight it except to try to discredit reality?

[denverbill]

9. Checking my watch. How soon before Conservasnopes.com starts operation? n/t

[hunter]

28. How twisted would you have to be to run a site like that?

You'd be like the staff paleontologist at a Creationist museum.

[denverbill]

34. Well they created 'Conservapedia' because Wikipedia was 'liberal biased'.

Then they created the Conservative Bible Project because the Bible was liberal biased.

I really don't think Conservasnopes is too far-fetched.

And it will be easy because they won't bother fact-checking anything. If it's pro-conservative it will all be true, if it's pro-liberal it will all be false. Then when liberals send back one of their whacked-out, made-up conservative emails with a link to Snopes debunking it, the conservatives can just reply with a link to another made up rebuttal.

Mark my word. It will happen.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Bwahahahahah.... ahahahaha... wait... can't breath.... LOLOLOL

Thanks for making my day!

[trumad]

12. I've often said it....

Truth is Krypotonite to Wingers.

[Javaman]

13. It will be amusing to see how snopes discredits this one. :) lol nt

[onenote]

14. send the following link to your wingnut pal and suggest he get a life

Its an article about the Mikkelsons and how they created Snopes from back in 1997 -- that's right, 13 years ago -- from the Los Angeles Times. Then ask your pal why he or anyone else thinks the Mikkelsons have been "hiding" their involvement with Snopes.

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/oct/06/local/me-39836

[uncle ray]

16. has SNOPES debunked this story yet?

:shrug:

[ET Awful]

20. Don't know, but the site the e-mailer says is more reliable has debunked it

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm

:rofl:

[Posteritatis]

31. Naturally!

[Bitwit1234]

17. SOOOOO if snopes doesn't agree with the repubs it is a hoax

who would have believed it...oh I know...republicans.

[ET Awful]

19. Gee, sounds like he got his info from Stormfront or something:

There is another article you find via Google with some of the same "liberal" accusations . . but guess what . . . :

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1027265

"For the record: We're not Jewish (not that it should matter to anyone save anti-semites), we don't live in the San Fernando Valley (and never have), and neither one of us is a Democrat ("liberal" or otherwise). Barbara's a Canadian citizen who couldn't possibly have an affiliation with a U.S. political party, and I'm officially registered as an independent. Neither of us has ever made a donation to a political party or candidate, worked on behalf of a political campaign (either on a paid or volunteer basis), or publicly endorsed or supported any party, candidate, or political cause (not even to the extent of displaying a bumper sticker, putting up a yard sign, or wearing a campaign button). Someone didn't know how to do basic investigative research, and it wasn't us."

They also detail where their funding comes from in their FAQ:

http://www.snopes.com/info/faq.asp

Oh, and most of their articles say the name David or Barbara Mikkelson at the top, doesn't seem like they're hiding a thing to me.


What's hilarious is that the site he says to use instead says he's lying: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm

BUAHAHAHAHAHA

[Maru Kitteh]

25. priceless.

[MilesColtrane]

21. That email is clearly a hoax.

The supposed wingnut writer uses "Democratic (party)" instead of "Democrat (party)".

What does snopes say about this?

[Orsino]

22. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." n/t

[DirkGently]

23. Any source of fact is the enemy

to these people. No surprise that teachers, journalists, college professors, and scientists are all -- what did he say -- "in the tank?" for liberalism. And now Snopes, whose great sin, obviously, is tirelessly debunking the endless "Obama is / said / did (blank which proves he's in league with Stalin, Beezlebub, terrorists, etc.)" rightwing e-mail chain letter of the week. Of course it must be "liberal bias."

All of which conveniently leaves Worldnet Daily as the only reliable source for information.


:rofl:

[Maru Kitteh]

24. Dear God. I simply cannot bring myself to read Republican emails. The dumb is so very painful.

[Lex]

26. The truth has a well-known liberal bias.

Yep.

[la_chupa]

27. I heard that Obama fathered two black children

What does your fancy snopes.com have to say about THAT hu hu

[daggahead]

29. Give me 5 minutes and I will update Wikipedia to say that the Catholic ...

... church was created by aliens from the Andromeda system.

[Liberal In Texas]

30. This again? This was first posted a couple of years ago. Check this out:

From the wingnut email:

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obamaand 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 .

From this 2008 post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4350205

Sign did not
reflect views of
State Farm Ins.

I would like to respond to the article that appeared in the Teche News regarding the political sign displayed at the Bud Gregg insurance agency.
Mr. Gregg is an independent contractor to State Farm®, and his views do not reflect those of State Farm Insurance Companies. Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns.
At State Farm® we take great pride in providing the best service possible to all of our customers, regardless of their political preferences, and take seriously our responsibility to do so. We appreciate your allowing us the opportunity to respond to this circumstance, and clarify our position. We would also appreciate you allowing your readers to know our side of the issue.
Please feel free to contact me if you should have any additional questions or concerns.

Molly Quirk-Kirby
Public Affairs Specialist
State Farm Insurance
Companies
http://www.techetoday.com/node/7462s

Another thread on it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7034053

It's amazing how these lies keep getting recycled and sent around.

[DemoTex]

35. Thanks! Just the ammo I was looking for.

This shall be fun.

[City Lights]

32. My aunt dismisses Snopes as "just another opinion."

Some people are beyond hope. My aunt is one of them.

[mzmolly]

33. From their own wiki link:

"Snopes receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative, but insists that it applies the same debunking standards to all political stories. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in American elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once a registered Republican. "You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.<23><24>"

:crazy: