Flashback - Trump confronted bat wielding mugger and stopped him.

[Agnostic007]

That word salad of a snopes article is hilarious.  Didnt disprove anything. 

uh.... that wasn't it's intent.

[Dos Equis]

Do your research Agnostic.

He did.  He read an objective analysis of snopes.  Even though he is unable to identify that objective analysis. 

[Agnostic007]

He did.  He read an objective analysis of snopes.  Even though he is unable to identify that objective analysis. 

I'm able to, it just won't matter here. You know that

[Dos Equis]

I'm able to, it just won't matter here. You know that

I think you just didn't read an objective analysis of snopes.  If you did, it would taken you a lot fewer keystrokes to identify the source. 

[Agnostic007]

I think you just didn't read an objective analysis of snopes.  If you did, it would taken you a lot fewer keystrokes to identify the source. 

I thought about posting the links.. then I thought about all the links I have posted in the past to this group.. and I'm in a learning phase where I am dialing down on caring about what you know or think, so part of the exercise is to avoid getting drawn into debates where there is no possibility it will matter.

[Dos Equis]

I thought about posting the links.. then I thought about all the links I have posted in the past to this group.. and I'm in a learning phase where I am dialing down on caring about what you know or think, so part of the exercise is to avoid getting drawn into debates where there is no possibility it will matter.

I think it's much simpler than that.  I don't believe you read an objective analysis of snopes.  You've put a lot off effort into explaining why you won't post what you read, when you could have taken about 15 seconds to post "the links."  

[LittleJ]

Another lie from don the con

[Agnostic007]

I think it's much simpler than that.  I don't believe you read an objective analysis of snopes.  You've put a lot off effort into explaining why you won't post what you read, when you could have taken about 15 seconds to post "the links."  

name a time I posted a link that swayed you or you didn't immediately discount for one reason or another?

[Dos Equis]

name a time I posted a link that swayed you or you didn't immediately discount for one reason or another?

I don't recall you posting many links in response to my inquiries.  I do recall you cutting and pasting stuff you grabbed off the internet that you obviously hadn't read. 

But in this instance, you're simply trying to change the subject because you likely said something without thinking (i.e., that you read an objective analysis of snopes). 

[Agnostic007]

I don't recall you posting many links in response to my inquiries.  I do recall you cutting and pasting stuff you grabbed off the internet that you obviously hadn't read. 

But in this instance, you're simply trying to change the subject because you likely said something without thinking (i.e., that you read an objective analysis of snopes). 

nice try

[Dos Equis]

nice try

Very poor attempt to try and avoid the fact you did not read an objective analysis of snopes. 

[Agnostic007]

Very poor attempt to try and avoid the fact you did not read an objective analysis of snopes. 

yeah you got me. Snopes is completely unbelievable

[Dos Equis]

yeah you got me. Snopes is completely unbelievable

Nah.  Just your false claim that you read an objective analysis of snopes. 

[Agnostic007]

Nah.  Just your false claim that you read an objective analysis of snopes. 

I read a competitors response to the allegations. What would a competitor's motivation be to back up their competition unless it was true?

[Dos Equis]

I read a competitors response to the allegations. What would a competitor's motivation be to back up their competition unless it was true?

I see.  So now you're claiming you only read a competitor's response to the allegations.  You claimed you read an objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes.  I doubted your contention, but asked you for a link.  Rather than post a link, you tried to change the subject. 

The thing about lying is you often cannot tell just one. 

I'm actually not shocked at all that you don't question what you read on snopes. 

I've read a good, objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes.  Have you? 

absolutely. I've read the competitors response to allegations about snopes as well. have you?

Since you have "absolutely" read a good, objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes, you should be able to post the link.

[loco]

Dos Equis ain't gonna let this one go.   

[Agnostic007]

I see.  So now you're claiming you only read a competitor's response to the allegations.  You claimed you read an objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes.  I doubted your contention, but asked you for a link.  Rather than post a link, you tried to change the subject. 

The thing about lying is you often cannot tell just one. 

Since you have "absolutely" read a good, objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes, you should be able to post the link.

post that good objective link about snopes problems

[Dos Equis]

post that good objective link about snopes problems

It is discussed in the book called The Smear, which I read recently.  I would provide some actual quotes, but I loaned the book to a coworker and in any event I'm in the Heartland freezing like the weather wimp I am. 

Posted about the book right here: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=640782.0

Now, I guess you can just admit you didn't tell the truth and I'll leave you alone.  Or you could keep lying.  Or just ignore the thread.  I think you are a good, smart guy, but everyone makes mistakes. 

[Agnostic007]

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

https://www.thoughtco.com/snopes-exposed-snopes-got-snoped-not-so-much-3299548


"Is Snopes.com Infallible? Of Course Not
No one is immune to error, and that includes the folks who run Snopes.com, TruthorFiction.com, and even, God knows, yours truly.

Reader, if you take nothing else away from this commentary, at least pay heed to this one important point: no information source is infallible. Whether it be an urban legends website, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Encyclopedia Britannica, mistakes can be made, nuances missed, or unconscious biases unleashed at any point in the fact-checking process.

Rule of thumb: Wherever possible, avoid depending on any single source of information, no matter how esteemed its reputation or how reliable it has proven in the past.

To quote Snopes.com's Barbara Mikkelson, "It's just as much a mistake to look to a usually-reliable source to do all of the thinking, judging, and weighing as it was to unquestioningly believe every unsigned email that came along."

In the thorny search for truth, there's no substitute for doing one's own research and applying one's own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed."

I agree with the above. Snopes is not the end all be all of the truth. However, over time, it has proven to be reliable. That doesn't mean it should be your single source to confirm a particular claim. But to discount anything Snopes reports as unworthy of consideration is even more ludicrous.

[Dos Equis]

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

https://www.thoughtco.com/snopes-exposed-snopes-got-snoped-not-so-much-3299548


"Is Snopes.com Infallible? Of Course Not
No one is immune to error, and that includes the folks who run Snopes.com, TruthorFiction.com, and even, God knows, yours truly.

Reader, if you take nothing else away from this commentary, at least pay heed to this one important point: no information source is infallible. Whether it be an urban legends website, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Encyclopedia Britannica, mistakes can be made, nuances missed, or unconscious biases unleashed at any point in the fact-checking process.

Rule of thumb: Wherever possible, avoid depending on any single source of information, no matter how esteemed its reputation or how reliable it has proven in the past.

To quote Snopes.com's Barbara Mikkelson, "It's just as much a mistake to look to a usually-reliable source to do all of the thinking, judging, and weighing as it was to unquestioningly believe every unsigned email that came along."

In the thorny search for truth, there's no substitute for doing one's own research and applying one's own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed."

I agree with the above. Snopes is not the end all be all of the truth. However, over time, it has proven to be reliable. That doesn't mean it should be your single source to confirm a particular claim. But to discount anything Snopes reports as unworthy of consideration is even more ludicrous.

You posted a link written by Viveca Novak, a liberal, as an objective source? 

And then you posted a link by David Emery, an author of snopes, who gives an objective analysis of snopes? 

Holy smokes.  You really should stop already.   

[Agnostic007]

You posted a link written by Viveca Novak, a liberal, as an objective source? 

And then you posted a link by David Emery, an author of snopes, who gives an objective analysis of snopes? 

Holy smokes.  You really should stop already.   

You realize you are calling the kettle black pot? You posted your example of an objective analysis of Snopes, as probably a by line from a book written by a journalist who also infers vaccines could be the cause of many illnesses. Also was anti Obama etc etc. Your source, which you say contains X, though haven't shown that.. is not much better. 

[Dos Equis]

You realize you are calling the kettle black pot? You posted your example of an objective analysis of Snopes, as probably a by line from a book written by a journalist who also infers vaccines could be the cause of many illnesses. Also was anti Obama etc etc. Your source, which you say contains X, though haven't shown that.. is not much better. 

Oh stop it already.  You lied dude.  It's ok.  I forgive you.  Heat of the moment, knee jerk kinda thing. 

And don't give me some crap you spent sixty seconds trying to Google.  lol.  Nice try.

[Agnostic007]

Oh stop it already.  You lied dude.  It's ok.  I forgive you.  Heat of the moment, knee jerk kinda thing. 

And don't give me some crap you spent sixty seconds trying to Google.  lol.  Nice try.

No... lets be honest here. My objective analysis is every bit as your objective analysis that you have yet to actually show other than you read a book that a friend has that a journalist wrote.  I'll wait until you get the book back so you can show your objective analysis. I can certainly say that objective analysis could certainly be an overstatement on my part, but no more than yours

[Dos Equis]

No... lets be honest here. My objective analysis is every bit as your objective analysis that you have yet to actually show other than you read a book that a friend has that a journalist wrote.  I'll wait until you get the book back so you can show your objective analysis. I can certainly say that objective analysis could certainly be an overstatement on my part, but no more than yours

That's the problem.  You're not being honest.  You didn't read an objective analysis of snopes.  You spent darn near two pages explaining why you wouldn't post a link (because you didn't have one), then you posted a link written by a snopes author.  lol  Bruh.  You're too smart for this.  That's like me posting a link to Sean Hannity giving an objective analysis of Fox News or Rachel Maddow giving an objective analysis of MSNBC. 

[Agnostic007]

That's the problem.  You're not being honest.  You didn't read an objective analysis of snopes.  You spent darn near two pages explaining why you wouldn't post a link (because you didn't have one), then you posted a link written by a snopes author.  lol  Bruh.  You're too smart for this.  That's like me posting a link to Sean Hannity giving an objective analysis of Fox News or Rachel Maddow giving an objective analysis of MSNBC. 

the truth is, neither did you