O/T: Snopes

[Robatoy]

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

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

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

[salty]

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.

[Robatoy]

On Oct 31, 10:06=A0am, [e-mail] wrote: [snipped for brevity]

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.

[salty]

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

[Max]

Heh,heh, EVERYBODY has a political agenda.

Max

[salty]

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

[jbd in Denver]

Robatoy wrote in news:whateveryoulike- [e-mail]:

Heck, I figured since it was written on the Internet....

** Posted from **

[MikeWhy]

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.

[Richard Evans]

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?

[Nova]

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.

[Curran Copeland]

">

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.

[jo4hn]

What does ethics have to do with politics. All you McCainoids remember to vote early and often. no agenda known, Sarah

[Robatoy]

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...

[Robatoy]

LOL.. there ya go...

[salty]

???

[clare]

ANd YOUR agenda is?????????????

[Swingman]

"jo4hn" wrote

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

[Robatoy]

Keep your shirt on, okay? I'm a Canuckistani, I am not allowed an agenda.

[Mark & Juanita]

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.

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: . 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.

[Robatoy]

were

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