Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Snopes - fact checking by hookers and druggies

89 views
Skip to first unread message

Seaview

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 10:46:18 AM7/27/17
to

http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/

.”
Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
Vixen" and offered sex toy tips

Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as “Vice
Vixen” and offered sex toy tips

As WND reported, one of Snopes’ leading fact-checkers is a former
sex-and-fetish blogger who described her routine as smoking pot and
posting to Snopes.com. Kim LaCapria is disclosed to be a former
sex-blogger who called herself “Vice Vixen.”

Her blog had “a specific focus on naughtiness, sin, carnal pursuits, and
general hedonism and bonne vivante-ery.”

LaCapria’s day-off activities she said on another blog were: “played
scrabble, smoked pot, and posted to Snopes.'”

“That’s what I did on my day “on,” too,” she added.

David Mikkelson has told the Daily Mail that Snopes does not have a
“standardized procedure” for fact-checking “since the nature of this
material can vary widely.”

He said the process of fact-checking “‘involves multiple stages of
editorial oversight, so no output is the result of a single person’s
discretion.”

Snopes has no formal requirements for fact-checkers, he told the London
paper, because the variety of the work “would be difficult to encompass
in any single blanket set of standards.”

Mikkelson has denied that Snopes takes any political position, but the
Daily Mail noted his new wife ran for U.S. congress in Hawaii as a
Libertarian in 2004.

During the campaign she handed out “Re-Defeat Bush” cards and condoms
stamped with the slogan “Don’t get screwed again.”

“Let’s face it, I am an unlikely candidate. I fully admit that I am a
courtesan,” she wrote on her campaign website.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 2:45:39 PM7/27/17
to
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>
>http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>
>.”
>Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>Vixen" and offered sex toy tips


So what?

They provide cites for much of what they write. You have a problem
with the cites based on who wrote them?

Wayne

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 3:09:29 PM7/27/17
to
I don't care who does the fact checking as long as it is accurate.

With Snopes there seems to be a left bias.
Negative questions about conservatives are always reported as True or
False.

Negative questions about liberals tend to be Mixed or False.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 3:59:40 PM7/27/17
to
On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>
>> .”
>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>
>
> So what?

So these are not the traits of a professional investigative journalist.

They're the calling cards of a flighty dingbat millenial.

> They provide cites for much of what they write.

So does "politifact" and they're little more than a shell for the
lamestream left.

> You have a problem
> with the cites based on who wrote them?

You generally trust hookers and druggies to do your fact-checking?

Seaview

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 4:03:11 PM7/27/17
to
On 7/27/2017 1:09 PM, Wayne wrote:
> On 7/27/2017 11:45 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>
>>>
>>> .”
>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> They provide cites for much of what they write. You have a problem
>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>>
> I don't care who does the fact checking as long as it is accurate.

So you'd be good with porn starlets doing it too?

Wow.

> With Snopes there seems to be a left bias.

Same as "politifact"...

> Negative questions about conservatives are always reported as True or
> False.

Yep.

> Negative questions about liberals tend to be Mixed or False.

Mmm hmmm...

And:

https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/

I love this story. Not only does it explain why I do not place much
credibility in Snopes, the fact that it is done by someone with the
exact same credentials drives homw the point. The only thing that
separates the two is that the “MSM” has ‘blessed’ Snopes, thereby giving
it the appearance of credibility. But then, given what is in the story,
why wouldn’t the MSM support Snopes? Snopes is helping them do their
primary job of misleading people about the Leftist agenda and doings:

Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation
using Google.

What is behind Snopes’ selfish motivation? A simple review of their
“fact-checking” reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms
towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving
conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are
similarly shown no mercy. With the “main-stream” media quickly losing
all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes
is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly
biased and agenda-motivated.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/billy-martin/proof-snopescom-is-fake-can-not-be-used-for-the-truth/573901245964384

In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in
Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash
across the internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue
and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they
claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into
taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A
friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of
the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers.
Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers
to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that
they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.
But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out
that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm.
Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day,
as the "final factual word" on the issue.
What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their
"fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms
towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving
conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are
similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing
all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes
is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly
biased and agenda-modivated.

So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you
have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as
well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to
wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been
caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as
Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these
sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are
written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative.
Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their
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.

Credit Goes Too http://worldtruth.tv/snopes-got-snoped/

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 7:25:51 PM7/27/17
to
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:59:34 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>
>>> .”
>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>
>>
>> So what?
>
>So these are not the traits of a professional investigative journalist.

ROFLMAO

So what?

>> You have a problem
>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>
>You generally trust hookers and druggies to do your fact-checking?

If they provide cites that one can check, why not?

Seaview

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 8:14:39 PM7/27/17
to
On 7/27/2017 5:25 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:59:34 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>
>>>> .”
>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> So these are not the traits of a professional investigative journalist.
>
> ROFLMAO
>
> So what?

Would you allow an amateur pilot to fly a 747?

>>> You have a problem
>>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>>
>> You generally trust hookers and druggies to do your fact-checking?
>
> If they provide cites that one can check, why not?

Simple - very obviously it is NOT their core competency nor are they
credentialed research professionals.

I don;t know why you wanted to lose this debate, but you have.

whit3rd

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 10:15:58 PM7/27/17
to
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 1:03:11 PM UTC-7, Seaview wrote:
> On 7/27/2017 1:09 PM, Wayne wrote:

> > I don't care who does the fact checking as long as it is accurate.
>
> So you'd be good with porn starlets doing it too?

Why not? Honest work, anyone can apply. People
are more complex than your stereotyped mental image.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

Wayne

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 10:45:31 PM7/27/17
to
On 7/27/2017 1:03 PM, Seaview wrote:
> On 7/27/2017 1:09 PM, Wayne wrote:
>> On 7/27/2017 11:45 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .”
>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>
>>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>> They provide cites for much of what they write. You have a problem
>>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>>>
>> I don't care who does the fact checking as long as it is accurate.
>
> So you'd be good with porn starlets doing it too?
>
> Wow.
>

Not exactly what I meant. If a porn starlet is qualified to do the
work, I wouldn't care if other than researching Snopes she had a porn
star sideline.

>> With Snopes there seems to be a left bias.
>
> Same as "politifact"...
>
>> Negative questions about conservatives are always reported as True or
>> False.
>
> Yep.
>
>> Negative questions about liberals tend to be Mixed or False.
>
> Mmm hmmm...
>
> And:

Yep, that's the kind of bias I have noticed.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 27, 2017, 11:55:35 PM7/27/17
to
On 7/27/2017 8:44 PM, Wayne wrote:
> On 7/27/2017 1:03 PM, Seaview wrote:
>> On 7/27/2017 1:09 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2017 11:45 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .”
>>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>> They provide cites for much of what they write. You have a problem
>>>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>>>>
>>> I don't care who does the fact checking as long as it is accurate.
>>
>> So you'd be good with porn starlets doing it too?
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>
> Not exactly what I meant. If a porn starlet is qualified to do the
> work, I wouldn't care if other than researching Snopes she had a porn
> star sideline.

Iow, she needs an investigative journalism background and the
credentials to prove as much.

I'm fine with folks who change career paths - just be competent and not
an obvious amateur.

Using "googoo" is not a skill set, it's a fall into a biased web of deceit.

>>> With Snopes there seems to be a left bias.
>>
>> Same as "politifact"...
>>
>>> Negative questions about conservatives are always reported as True or
>>> False.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> Negative questions about liberals tend to be Mixed or False.
>>
>> Mmm hmmm...
>>
>> And:
>
> Yep, that's the kind of bias I have noticed.

Same here.
It was a darned good scam while it lasted, and now it CNN's itself into
the drink.

Same emotional pathology, same kinds of players, same results.

Game over.

But better played than CNN's sham.

Scout

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 1:57:21 AM7/28/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:oldvlc$i3$3...@news.mixmin.net...
> On 7/27/2017 5:25 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:59:34 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>>
>>>>> .”
>>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> So these are not the traits of a professional investigative journalist.
>>
>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> So what?
>
> Would you allow an amateur pilot to fly a 747?

Depends, I know some amateur pilots that I would trust a darn sight more
than the professional pilots..... You know the ones that go to sleep during
a long flight.


>
>>>> You have a problem
>>>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>>>
>>> You generally trust hookers and druggies to do your fact-checking?
>>
>> If they provide cites that one can check, why not?
>
> Simple - very obviously it is NOT their core competency nor are they
> credentialed research professionals.

Nor do they have any sort of accredited or even examined error checking
procedure. Clearly obvious errors managed to make their way through all the
checks....

So who checks the checkers?

Scout

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 2:57:24 AM7/28/17
to


"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ole88c$25v$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 7/27/2017 1:03 PM, Seaview wrote:
>> On 7/27/2017 1:09 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2017 11:45 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>>
>>>>> .”
>>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>> They provide cites for much of what they write. You have a problem
>>>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>>>>
>>> I don't care who does the fact checking as long as it is accurate.
>>
>> So you'd be good with porn starlets doing it too?
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>
> Not exactly what I meant. If a porn starlet is qualified to do the work,

I've seen nothing to show she is qualified.

Rather it seems that they search for comments that either support or refute
a particular claim without considering the validity of the claim made, or
bothering the fact check what they are using to support or refute the claim.

So what you're seeing seems little more than drive-bys without any sign that
they are actually checking the facts to arrive at the truth. Rather they go
looking for whatever leaning they have and if they find it that's what they
post....even if they ignore multiple sources that would establish an
alternate position to what they want to show.

In short, they aren't looking to establish what the truth is, only whether
they want to pick sources that would support their position on the subject.


Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 9:03:49 AM7/28/17
to
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:14:35 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>On 7/27/2017 5:25 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:59:34 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>>
>>>>> .”
>>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> So these are not the traits of a professional investigative journalist.
>>
>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> So what?
>
>Would you allow an amateur pilot to fly a 747?

Are you unable to read a cite? Do you need a pilot's license?

LOL



>
>>>> You have a problem
>>>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>>>
>>> You generally trust hookers and druggies to do your fact-checking?
>>
>> If they provide cites that one can check, why not?
>
>Simple - very obviously it is NOT their core competency nor are they
>credentialed research professionals.


ROFLMAO

You can't be this fucking stupid.

Can you?

Seaview

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 10:43:47 AM7/28/17
to
On 7/28/2017 7:03 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:14:35 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2017 5:25 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:59:34 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .”
>>>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>> So these are not the traits of a professional investigative journalist.
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> Would you allow an amateur pilot to fly a 747?
>
> Are you unable to read a cite?

Are you unable to provide one?

> Do you need a pilot's license?

Rated for which class of air frame and instruments?

> LOL

At you, yes.

>>
>>>>> You have a problem
>>>>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>>>>
>>>> You generally trust hookers and druggies to do your fact-checking?
>>>
>>> If they provide cites that one can check, why not?
>>
>> Simple - very obviously it is NOT their core competency nor are they
>> credentialed research professionals.
>
>
> ROFLMAO

At yourself.

> You can't be this fucking stupid.
>
> Can you?

You lose debates so childishly and easily.

2nd nature for you?

Snopes it, clown.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 11:04:31 AM7/28/17
to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:43:41 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>On 7/28/2017 7:03 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:14:35 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2017 5:25 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:59:34 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .”
>>>>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>
>>>>> So these are not the traits of a professional investigative journalist.
>>>>
>>>> ROFLMAO
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> Would you allow an amateur pilot to fly a 747?
>>
>> Are you unable to read a cite?
>
>Are you unable to provide one?

Provide one for what?


>> Do you need a pilot's license?
>
>Rated for which class of air frame and instruments?

Are you related to Siri by any chance?


>> You can't be this fucking stupid.
>>
>> Can you?
>
>You lose debates so childishly and easily.

Except there's been no debate here. Just you babbling about pilots or
some shit and your inability to read a cite without someone explaining
it to you.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 4:51:53 PM7/28/17
to
On 7/28/2017 9:04 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:43:41 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2017 7:03 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:14:35 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2017 5:25 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:59:34 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .”
>>>>>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>>>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So these are not the traits of a professional investigative journalist.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROFLMAO
>>>>>
>>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>> Would you allow an amateur pilot to fly a 747?
>>>
>>> Are you unable to read a cite?
>>
>> Are you unable to provide one?
>
> Provide one for what?
>
>
>>> Do you need a pilot's license?
>>
>> Rated for which class of air frame and instruments?
>
> Are you related to Siri by any chance?

You said:"Are you unable to read a cite?"

So the obvious implication is that you had one to share.

If so, where is it?

>>> You can't be this fucking stupid.
>>>
>>> Can you?
>>
>> You lose debates so childishly and easily.
>
> Except there's been no debate here.

That's a lie, you decided to defend snopes' hookers and druggies ability
to fact check.

> Just you babbling about pilots or
> some shit and your inability to read a cite without someone explaining
> it to you.

If you had a cite to share I never saw it.

Otoh I did a nice job chronicling snopes' rotten culture, inherent
leftarded bias, and questionable character.

Case closed, as it were.


Seaview

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 5:03:22 PM7/28/17
to
On 7/27/2017 11:46 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
> news:oldvlc$i3$3...@news.mixmin.net...
>> On 7/27/2017 5:25 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:59:34 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .”
>>>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>> So these are not the traits of a professional investigative journalist.
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> Would you allow an amateur pilot to fly a 747?
>
> Depends, I know some amateur pilots that I would trust a darn sight more
> than the professional pilots..... You know the ones that go to sleep
> during a long flight.

No, I would _never_ let an amateur pilot fly a 747 as matter of course,
nor would the FAA.

>>>>> You have a problem
>>>>> with the cites based on who wrote them?
>>>>
>>>> You generally trust hookers and druggies to do your fact-checking?
>>>
>>> If they provide cites that one can check, why not?
>>
>> Simple - very obviously it is NOT their core competency nor are they
>> credentialed research professionals.
>
> Nor do they have any sort of accredited or even examined error checking
> procedure. Clearly obvious errors managed to make their way through all
> the checks....

Indeed they did.

> So who checks the checkers?

Lord Zuckerberg or Larry Page?

;-(

Seaview

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 5:04:58 PM7/28/17
to
This accurately summarizes the entire mission of snopes, to appear
credible as a veneer for disseminating loaded partisan bias.

It's cynical to the extreme.

Wayne

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 5:15:01 PM7/28/17
to
I stopped watching CNN in January.
Same with the late night talk shows, Colbert in particular.
I use a timer to turn off the TV in the morning so that I won't
accidentally walk by the TV, see "The View", and throw a shoe.


Seaview

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 5:19:39 PM7/28/17
to
I do not blame you.

> Same with the late night talk shows, Colbert in particular.

Odious little man.

How telling his career sprang from being GM's snarky and officious Mr.
Goodwrench.

Colbert wouldn't know a spanner from a screwdriver.

> I use a timer to turn off the TV in the morning so that I won't
> accidentally walk by the TV, see "The View", and throw a shoe.

Sadly that caustic dreck is on in almost every physician's waiting room
in the nation.

Clearly part of some plot to enhance the number of patients needing
mental health counseling.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 7:04:43 PM7/28/17
to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:51:44 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>You said:"Are you unable to read a cite?"
>
>So the obvious implication is that you had one to share.

It would be "obvious" only if you were an idiot, since we were talking
about cites and your inability to comprehend them without a pilot
reading them to you, or some such nonsense.

[chuckle]

Seaview

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 7:10:05 PM7/28/17
to
Ah no, you made that up.

We were talking about snopes' so-called fact checkers - hookers and
druggies.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 7:13:50 PM7/28/17
to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:10:00 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>On 7/28/2017 5:04 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:51:44 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>> You said:"Are you unable to read a cite?"
>>>
>>> So the obvious implication is that you had one to share.
>>
>> It would be "obvious" only if you were an idiot, since we were talking
>> about cites and your inability to comprehend them without a pilot
>> reading them to you, or some such nonsense.
>>
>> [chuckle]
>>
>
>Ah no, you made that up.

Ah no, you tried to bring up some bullshit about pilots when you ran
out of ideas about why we couldn't accept Snope's citations.

Then you went into a tear about certified journalistic investigators
or some such thing, which only revealed that you were unable to read
and comprehend provided citations without help.

Have you thought about surrendering your right to vote?

Seaview

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 7:18:54 PM7/28/17
to
On 7/28/2017 5:13 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:10:00 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/2017 5:04 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:51:44 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You said:"Are you unable to read a cite?"
>>>>
>>>> So the obvious implication is that you had one to share.
>>>
>>> It would be "obvious" only if you were an idiot, since we were talking
>>> about cites and your inability to comprehend them without a pilot
>>> reading them to you, or some such nonsense.
>>>
>>> [chuckle]
>>>
>>
>> Ah no, you made that up.
>
> Ah no, you tried to bring up some bullshit about pilots when you ran
> out of ideas about why we couldn't accept Snope's citations.

I simply gave an example of how poor training would be swiftly
identified and dismissed.


> Then you went into a tear about certified journalistic investigators
> or some such thing, which only revealed that you were unable to read
> and comprehend provided citations without help.

The citations were excellent on snopes' lies, so much so I likley will
repaste them ad nauseum over your rather churlish responses.

> Have you thought about surrendering your right to vote?

Are you missing tRudey?


Seaview

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 7:21:04 PM7/28/17
to
On 7/28/2017 5:13 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> Ah no, you tried to bring up some bullshit about pilots when you ran
> out of ideas about why we couldn't accept Snope's citations.



Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 7:27:16 PM7/28/17
to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:18:50 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>On 7/28/2017 5:13 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:10:00 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2017 5:04 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:51:44 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You said:"Are you unable to read a cite?"
>>>>>
>>>>> So the obvious implication is that you had one to share.
>>>>
>>>> It would be "obvious" only if you were an idiot, since we were talking
>>>> about cites and your inability to comprehend them without a pilot
>>>> reading them to you, or some such nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> [chuckle]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah no, you made that up.
>>
>> Ah no, you tried to bring up some bullshit about pilots when you ran
>> out of ideas about why we couldn't accept Snope's citations.
>
>I simply gave an example of how poor training would be swiftly
>identified and dismissed.

Dismissed by you, because apparently you can't check out a cite on
your own.

According to you, if a hooker told you the sun appears to rise in the
east in the morning, and cited the encyclopedia Britannica, you could
"swiftly identify and dismiss" such nonsense because a hooker told
you.

I'm telling you you can check the provided cite and see for yourself.

Well, you should be able to. Maybe you can't.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 28, 2017, 7:30:54 PM7/28/17
to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:21:00 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>On 7/28/2017 5:13 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> Ah no, you tried to bring up some bullshit about pilots when you ran
>> out of ideas about why we couldn't accept Snope's citations.
>
>
>
>https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/
>
>I love this story.

Of course you would.

It's a blog that admits it's not always right, that says what you want
it to say.

Any idea who wrote it? Their training? Their education? Their
background? Their sources? Have they ever been arrested?

No, you know NONE Of these things, yet-- strangely-- you're accepting
what they right as fact.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Call your local clerk right now and demand they rescind your right to
vote.

Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 12:42:15 AM7/29/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:olg8qo$8cs$1...@news.mixmin.net...
> On 7/27/2017 11:46 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
>> news:oldvlc$i3$3...@news.mixmin.net...
>>> On 7/27/2017 5:25 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:59:34 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/27/2017 12:45 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .”
>>>>>>> Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice
>>>>>>> Vixen" and offered sex toy tips
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>
>>>>> So these are not the traits of a professional investigative
>>>>> journalist.
>>>>
>>>> ROFLMAO
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> Would you allow an amateur pilot to fly a 747?
>>
>> Depends, I know some amateur pilots that I would trust a darn sight more
>> than the professional pilots..... You know the ones that go to sleep
>> during a long flight.
>
> No, I would _never_ let an amateur pilot fly a 747 as matter of course,
> nor would the FAA.

So you would just let the aircraft crash because the professional pilots
were incapacitated?

Oh, and nothing, absolutely NOTHING, within the FAA regulations requires
that a pilot be a PROFESSIONAL.

Only that they are licensed and even that is irrelevant in emergencies.

So tell me again why you think being paid makes someone a better pilot?



Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 8:41:22 AM7/29/17
to
Not just "paid," but "professional."

pro·fes·sion·al
1. relating to or connected with a profession.
"young professional people"
synonyms: white-collar, nonmanual
"people in professional occupations"
2. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
occupation rather than as a pastime.

Looks like the Snopes dude *is* a professional to me.

But somehow, writing about the difference between latex and ruber
dildos means you're not longer a professional, and taints everything
else you might write about, for some reason.

But he has no problem citing World Net Daily.

[chuckle]

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 12:01:12 PM7/29/17
to
An emergency is never a "matter of course", now is it?

> Oh, and nothing, absolutely NOTHING, within the FAA regulations requires
> that a pilot be a PROFESSIONAL.

Professional = certified to fly a given class of aircraft, period.

> Only that they are licensed and even that is irrelevant in emergencies.

Emergencies are NOT th enorm.

> So tell me again why you think being paid makes someone a better pilot?

So tell me again why you want an amateur piloting a 747?

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 12:19:12 PM7/29/17
to
Yes, it implies a great deal of things, standards, resume, training,
verification, etc.

> pro·fes·sion·al
> 1. relating to or connected with a profession.
> "young professional people"
> synonyms: white-collar, nonmanual
> "people in professional occupations"
> 2. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
> occupation rather than as a pastime.
>
> Looks like the Snopes dude *is* a professional to me.

With a loaded bias, a drug habit, a messy divorce, with hookers, with
some serious personal deficits to say the least!

> But somehow, writing about the difference between latex and ruber
> dildos means you're not longer a professional, and taints everything
> else you might write about, for some reason.

You equate dildo reviews to actual fact-checking?

Odd.

Really odd!

> But he has no problem citing World Net Daily.
>
> [chuckle]

None at all, they employ credentialed and credible journalists, not
dildo testers.

Congrats Klaus, you have made yourself look like a fool carrying water
for snopes.

Was it worth it?

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 12:53:32 PM7/29/17
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 10:19:06 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>> Not just "paid," but "professional."
>
>Yes, it implies a great deal of things, standards, resume, training,
>verification, etc.

No, it doesn't imply that at all.

>> pro搭es新ion戢l
>> 1. relating to or connected with a profession.
>> "young professional people"
>> synonyms: white-collar, nonmanual
>> "people in professional occupations"
>> 2. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
>> occupation rather than as a pastime.
>>
>> Looks like the Snopes dude *is* a professional to me.
>
>With a loaded bias

Irrelevant

>, a drug habit

Irrelevant


>, a messy divorce

Irrelevant

>, with hookers

Bonus points

>, with some serious personal deficits to say the least!

Irrelevant



>> But somehow, writing about the difference between latex and ruber
>> dildos means you're not longer a professional, and taints everything
>> else you might write about, for some reason.
>
>You equate dildo reviews to actual fact-checking?

Um, YOU are the one claiming you can't do both.

>Odd.
>Really odd!

Your argument *is* very odd.


>> But he has no problem citing World Net Daily.
>>
>> [chuckle]
>
>None at all, they employ credentialed and credible journalists


ROFLMAO

Now you're just joking around.

>Congrats Klaus, you have made yourself look like a fool carrying water
>for snopes.

Congrats, Seaview, you've confirmed that you're all about emotion and
nothing about verifiable facts.

tyre biter

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 1:11:01 PM7/29/17
to




On 7/29/2017 10:53 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 10:19:06 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>
>>> Not just "paid," but "professional."
>>
>> Yes, it implies a great deal of things, standards, resume, training,
>> verification, etc.
>
> No, it doesn't imply that at all.

Actually it does.

But feel free to keep savaging your credibility.

>>> pro·fes·sion·al
>>> 1. relating to or connected with a profession.
>>> "young professional people"
>>> synonyms: white-collar, nonmanual
>>> "people in professional occupations"
>>> 2. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
>>> occupation rather than as a pastime.
>>>
>>> Looks like the Snopes dude *is* a professional to me.
>>
>> With a loaded bias
>
> Irrelevant

To "fact checking"?

It pretty well contradicts it from the get go.

>
>> , a drug habit
>
> Irrelevant

Diminishes trust worthiness.

>> , a messy divorce
>
> Irrelevant

Character issues.


>> , with hookers
>
> Bonus points

You make yourself look the fool.

>> , with some serious personal deficits to say the least!
>
> Irrelevant

Relevant and documented.

>>> But somehow, writing about the difference between latex and ruber
>>> dildos means you're not longer a professional, and taints everything
>>> else you might write about, for some reason.
>>
>> You equate dildo reviews to actual fact-checking?
>
> Um, YOU are the one claiming you can't do both.


Where?

Cite?

>crickets<


>> Odd.
>> Really odd!
>
> Your argument *is* very odd.

No, but your defense of the libitarded snopes is.

Is this what happens when tRudey stops playing with you?


>>> But he has no problem citing World Net Daily.
>>>
>>> [chuckle]
>>
>> None at all, they employ credentialed and credible journalists
>
>
> ROFLMAO
>
> Now you're just joking around.

Not really.

Jerome Corsi (b. 1946) is a regular WorldNetDaily columnist and
non-fiction author with Ph.D. in political science from Harvard.

>> Congrats Klaus, you have made yourself look like a fool carrying water
>> for snopes.
>
> Congrats, Seaview, you've confirmed that you're all about emotion and
> nothing about verifiable facts.


The facts cited stand.

Your ludicrous deflections and obfuscation collapse.

End of story.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 1:19:06 PM7/29/17
to

> ROFLMAO
>
> Now you're just joking around.



https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 1:26:51 PM7/29/17
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:19:00 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>
>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> Now you're just joking around.
>
>
>
>https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/
>
>I love this story.

Well of course you would. So did Tyrebiter.

It says what you want to hear.
It's not from a "professional."
It's from a blogger who admits he's not always right.

And you have no idea if he's been with a hooker or not.

You Birther GOP'ers are more pathetic every damn day.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 2:22:57 PM7/29/17
to

> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:19:00 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>
>>
>>> ROFLMAO
>>>
>>> Now you're just joking around.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/
>>
>> I love this story.
>
> Well of course you would. So did Tyrebiter.
>
> It says what you want to hear.
> It's not from a "professional."
> It's from a blogger who admits he's not always right.

Wait, is that sort of like using non-credentialed hookers and druggies
to "fact check?"

Lol.


> And you have no idea if he's been with a hooker or not.

Yeah I do.

> You Birther GOP'ers are more pathetic every damn day.

Wow, lotsa irrelevant stink bait there - are you channeling tRudey?


Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 2:27:33 PM7/29/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:olibg3$ktu$2...@news.mixmin.net...
Yes, it is. amateur pilots can fly in emergencies as a matter of course,
even non pilots can do so.

>
>> Oh, and nothing, absolutely NOTHING, within the FAA regulations requires
>> that a pilot be a PROFESSIONAL.
>
> Professional = certified to fly a given class of aircraft, period.

Wrong.

Professional - ones main paid occupation.



pro·fes·sion·al. [prəˈfeSH(ə)n(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE
2.(of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
occupation rather than as a pastime:
"a professional boxer"
synonyms: paid · salaried

You're talking professional pilots then those would be people who main paid
occupation is flying planes.



>> Only that they are licensed and even that is irrelevant in emergencies.
>
> Emergencies are NOT th enorm.

Nope, but allowing anyone who can fly to do so in an emergency IS.


>> So tell me again why you think being paid makes someone a better pilot?
>
> So tell me again why you want an amateur piloting a 747?

Because they can be better than the professional.

Meanwhile I note your inability to answer my question, so I will ask it
again.

Why do you think being paid makes someone a better pilot?



Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 2:27:42 PM7/29/17
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:22:50 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:19:00 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> ROFLMAO
>>>>
>>>> Now you're just joking around.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/
>>>
>>> I love this story.
>>
>> Well of course you would. So did Tyrebiter.
>>
>> It says what you want to hear.
>> It's not from a "professional."
>> It's from a blogger who admits he's not always right.
>
>Wait, is that sort of like using non-credentialed hookers and druggies
>to "fact check?"
>
>Lol.

Yeah, funny how you're so willing to accept "facts" from one amateur
but not from another.

[chuckle]

You're dismissed.

Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 2:32:02 PM7/29/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:olichu$ms9$1...@news.mixmin.net...
And you think having a pilot's license doesn't?

The only difference can be one pilot is getting paid regularly to fly and
the other isn't.

So why do you think being paid makes you a better pilot?

>
>> pro·fes·sion·al
>> 1. relating to or connected with a profession.
>> "young professional people"
>> synonyms: white-collar, nonmanual

So a lawyer who is a pilot in his spare time is a "professional pilot"?

I think not. As such this definition does not apply to what you asserted.

>> "people in professional occupations"
>> 2. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
>> occupation rather than as a pastime.

This is the one that would apply.

as in the use of a "professional pilot"

So tell me again, why you think being paid makes you a better pilot?


Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 2:42:41 PM7/29/17
to
You mean that I can feel free to choose between some kinds of amateurs
and those that are hookers and druggies?

Yeah, I do.

> [chuckle]
>
> You're dismissed.
>

That's a luser's exit.

https://www.facebook.com/snopeslie/

http://yournewswire.com/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/

Snopes has been caught lying again, proving that it has a political and
partisan agenda and it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers in
order to advance the cause of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party
establishment.

Earlier this year Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton Super PAC, admitted
they are spending millions of dollars to employ an army of trolls to
“correct” and “push back” against internet users who criticize Clinton.

Correct The Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project admitted in a press
release that it pays people to pretend to be Clinton supporters, and
claims that thousands of unsuspecting social media users have already
been “addressed” by the PAC’s mercenary social media warriors – with the
promise that many more will be “corrected” in the near future.

Given that Snopes entered the political fact checking game around the
same time, and began publishing more political articles than ever before
– most of which display a clear Clinton bias – it is legitimate to ask
if Snopes is also on the Correct The Record payroll.

Ethics Alarms reports:

Ethics Alarms has been tracking the increasing political bias exhibited
by Snopes, once the definitive “Urban Legends” web source to identify
false stories on the internet, e-mail hoaxes and other pollution of
public information.

The website has made the disastrous decision to wade into political
topics and to hire some new social justice warriors and wanna-be
Democratic Party operatives to cover them, resulting in the site
becoming a bad imitation of PolitiFact.

The disturbing trend really established itself this month, but it was in
evidence earlier. For example, Snopes rushed to defend Hillary Clinton
when the story of her defense of a child rapist was used to smear her.
(Ethics Alarms explained, correctly, unlike Snopes, what was unethical
about the attacks on Clinton—all defendants deserve a zealous defense,
no matter what the charge, and a lawyer isn’t endorsing or supporting a
client’s crimes by doing her professional duty.)

The Snopes defense, in contrast, was dishonest and misleading.

http://conservativetribune.com/snopes-busted-obamas-lies/

Rumor-disproving website Snopes has proven itself especially unreliable
on all matters political, and it did so again this week when it tried to
“bust” the myth that President Obama had paid Iran $400 million in
exchange for American citizens being held in Iranian jails.

As you may recall, back in January, the Obama administration managed to
win the release of the men. Within days, nearly half a billion dollars
was transferred to Iran.

Both Snopes and the Obama administration insist that the payment was
part of the Iran nuclear deal and completely unconnected to the release
of the men.

““[T]he money transfer was the result of a settlement of a long-standing
claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague around the same time
that the prisoners were released,” the Snopes article reads. “The
Tribunal was created specifically to deal with diplomatic relations
between Iran and the United States.”

The article largely sources a statement from State Department spokesman
Jack Kirby.

“The negotiations over the (arms deal) settlement … were completely
separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens
home,” Kirby said in the statement. “Not only were the two negotiations
separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side.”

Advertisement - story continues below
Here’s the problem: Snopes completely ignores several major factors,
including that Iran’s own government insisted that the payment was a
ransom for the men.

“Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials
describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry
didn’t respond to a request for comment,” The Wall Street Journal said
(via the Federalist Papers Project).

And then there’s Iran’s Fars News Agency, which quoted the leader of
Iran’s Basij Militia, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, openly saying that
it was a ransom payment.

“The annulment of sanctions against Iran’s Bank Sepah and reclaiming of
$1.7 billion of Iran’s frozen assets after 36 years showed that the U.S.
doesn’t understand anything but the language of force. This money was
returned for the freedom of the U.S. spy,” he said, referring to
released U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati.

Snopes’ report includes none of that, merely taking the word of the
administration as if it were more or less gospel.

Then again, this isn’t the first time the “mythbusting” website has been
busted for its liberal agenda. Back in June, it claimed that a mass
shooting stopped by a man concealed-carrying outside a nightclub wasn’t
really a mass shooting, because “accounts of the altercation don’t
indicate the gunman intended to kill multiple victims (or anyone at all).”

The man was firing at random people after a disagreement. Apparently,
that doesn’t mean he intended to kill them. Who knew?

Snopes also tried to “bust” the myth that there were no American flags
on stage during the first day of the Democratic National Convention by
showing a still frame of a flag present during the Pledge of Allegiance.
Pretty damning stuff, until you realize that the still frame was from
the second day, after the DNC had realized how bad the lack of flags
looked. (The flag was also taken down right after the pledge, so there
was that, too.)

However, it takes a certain lack of credibility to “bust” a myth by
listening only to professional politicians — or their spokesmen — and
taking their word for it. Can you imagine if other reporters did this?

“A ‘third-rate burglary?’ Well, looks like Nixon didn’t have anything to
do with it after all! Who knew? Burger King for lunch, Woodward?”

Fine moments in reporting, brought to you by the ethos of Snopes.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 2:45:56 PM7/29/17
to
Where did I say that?

Cite!

> The only difference can be one pilot is getting paid regularly to fly
> and the other isn't.

No, other differences include employer sponsored flight simulator
training, total hours of fly time accumulated, etc.

> So why do you think being paid makes you a better pilot?

HOURS flown.

Simulator time.

Training.

That sort of thing.

>>
>>> pro·fes·sion·al
>>> 1. relating to or connected with a profession.
>>> "young professional people"
>>> synonyms: white-collar, nonmanual
>
> So a lawyer who is a pilot in his spare time is a "professional pilot"?

Not my cite.
> I think not. As such this definition does not apply to what you asserted.

Not my assertion.

>>> "people in professional occupations"
>>> 2. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
>>> occupation rather than as a pastime.
>
> This is the one that would apply.
>
> as in the use of a "professional pilot"
>
> So tell me again, why you think being paid makes you a better pilot?

This is getting tiresome.

#1 - watch the attributions.

AND:


HOURS flown.

Simulator time.

Training.

That sort of thing.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 2:49:00 PM7/29/17
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:42:35 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>You mean that I can feel free to choose between some kinds of amateurs
>and those that are hookers and druggies?
>
>Yeah, I do.
>
>> [chuckle]
>>
>> You're dismissed.
>>
>
>That's a luser's exit.

That's what I do when someone [you] is obviously too fucking dense to
understand what we're even talking about. This is the case here.

Again (not that it will help):

The background or breeding habits of Snopes writers doesn't change any
of the cites they provide.

You're just angry that they dismissed your GOP birther bullshit as
just that-- bullshit.



Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 2:52:33 PM7/29/17
to
On 7/29/2017 12:48 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:42:35 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>
>> You mean that I can feel free to choose between some kinds of amateurs
>> and those that are hookers and druggies?
>>
>> Yeah, I do.
>>
>>> [chuckle]
>>>
>>> You're dismissed.
>>>
>>
>> That's a luser's exit.
>
> That's what I do when someone [you] is obviously too fucking dense to
> understand what we're even talking about. This is the case here.

You are correct, I do not understand why you are carrying water for a
partisan spite site like snopes.

> Again (not that it will help):
>
> The background or breeding habits of Snopes writers doesn't change any
> of the cites they provide.

The editorial BIAS they regularly exhibit does.

And the character flaws they live daily diminish any credibility they
think they've created.

> You're just angry that they dismissed your GOP birther bullshit as
> just that-- bullshit.

Why are you so fascinated with the "birther" angle?

You are the one who brought that up, not me.

Again:

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:05:26 PM7/29/17
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:52:28 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>On 7/29/2017 12:48 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:42:35 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>> You mean that I can feel free to choose between some kinds of amateurs
>>> and those that are hookers and druggies?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I do.
>>>
>>>> [chuckle]
>>>>
>>>> You're dismissed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a luser's exit.
>>
>> That's what I do when someone [you] is obviously too fucking dense to
>> understand what we're even talking about. This is the case here.
>
>You are correct, I do not understand

That's plain to see. Which is why I dismissed you. Now you're just
boring.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:09:49 PM7/29/17
to
It was until you dishonestly snipped my reply.

Again:

"You are correct, I do not understand why you are carrying water for a
partisan spite site like snopes."

Much better in full context, of course.

> Which is why I dismissed you.

No it's not.

You did that because you got caught carrying water for a left wing liar
site and got so extended in your rhetoric that you had to double and
triple down on it.

> Now you're just boring.

Not so boring that you aren't still flailing madly away as snopes' pro
bono usenet defense team.

A sad performance that is, truly sad.


Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:22:12 PM7/29/17
to


"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
news:lrkpncp6vo0jito40...@4ax.com...
I think the point here shouldn't be whether they are amateurs or
professionals, but rather whether they have the experience, knowledge,
education and training to do the job. Including having a means which they
have independent checkers cross checking their claims. As it is there is no
indication that experience, knowledge, education or training as a fact
checker are required to work with Snopes, nor is there any process by which
their results are verified, certified, or otherwise confirmed as stating the
facts as they actually exist.

In short, competence and verification of what they assert as the facts are
what we should be looking at.

If they had that, I personally wouldn't care what their former occupations
were, or even what they did on their own time. However, as a site that
claims to be a fact checker, then I expect and demand accuracy approaching
100% that what they present are the facts and everything is being subject to
independent verification, including from the internet community.
On many issues, they aren't presenting facts...they are presenting views,
opinions, or commonly held beliefs which are often driven not by the facts
but their own personal out look.


Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:23:43 PM7/29/17
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 13:09:44 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>On 7/29/2017 1:05 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:52:28 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/29/2017 12:48 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:42:35 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You mean that I can feel free to choose between some kinds of amateurs
>>>>> and those that are hookers and druggies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [chuckle]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're dismissed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a luser's exit.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I do when someone [you] is obviously too fucking dense to
>>>> understand what we're even talking about. This is the case here.
>>>
>>> You are correct, I do not understand
>>
>> That's plain to see.
>
>It was until

No. It still is.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:27:12 PM7/29/17
to
All I'm saying is that Snopes usually presents the sources of their
information, which are easily checked. If, for example, they are
citing some leftist rag, one could easily dismiss their "findings."

But, as I think you'll agree, their marital status or other jobs have
nothing to do with their cites. Do they lean to the left? Maybe.
They're still a useful source of information.

I don't know of ANY similar site that has 100% accuracy.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:28:02 PM7/29/17
to
On 7/29/2017 1:22 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
> news:lrkpncp6vo0jito40...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:22:50 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:19:00 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ROFLMAO
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you're just joking around.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/
>>>>>
>>>>> I love this story.
>>>>
>>>> Well of course you would. So did Tyrebiter.
>>>>
>>>> It says what you want to hear.
>>>> It's not from a "professional."
>>>> It's from a blogger who admits he's not always right.
>>>
>>> Wait, is that sort of like using non-credentialed hookers and druggies
>>> to "fact check?"
>>>
>>> Lol.
>>
>> Yeah, funny how you're so willing to accept "facts" from one amateur
>> but not from another.
>>
>> [chuckle]
>>
>> You're dismissed.
>
> I think the point here shouldn't be whether they are amateurs or
> professionals, but rather whether they have the experience, knowledge,
> education and training to do the job.

Hookers and druggies tend not to, as opposed to credentialed journalists.


> Including having a means which
> they have independent checkers cross checking their claims. As it is
> there is no indication that experience, knowledge, education or training
> as a fact checker are required to work with Snopes, nor is there any
> process by which their results are verified, certified, or otherwise
> confirmed as stating the facts as they actually exist.

Well, there is google...

;-)

> In short, competence and verification of what they assert as the facts
> are what we should be looking at.

Of course.
> If they had that, I personally wouldn't care what their former
> occupations were, or even what they did on their own time. However, as a
> site that claims to be a fact checker, then I expect and demand accuracy
> approaching 100% that what they present are the facts and everything is
> being subject to independent verification, including from the internet
> community.
> On many issues, they aren't presenting facts...they are presenting
> views, opinions, or commonly held beliefs which are often driven not by
> the facts but their own personal out look.
>


Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:28:29 PM7/29/17
to
You are acting like tRudey.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:30:24 PM7/29/17
to
That does not diminish their editorial bias one iota.

> If, for example, they are
> citing some leftist rag, one could easily dismiss their "findings."

One does too.


> But, as I think you'll agree, their marital status or other jobs have
> nothing to do with their cites. Do they lean to the left? Maybe.

Not even a "maybe".

> They're still a useful source of information.

They were once upon a time, but then so was CNN.

> I don't know of ANY similar site that has 100% accuracy.

No one asked for 100% accuracy.

That's a cheap canard.

Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:37:45 PM7/29/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:olil52$7ue$1...@news.mixmin.net...
When you implied only professional pilots had these things.

>> The only difference can be one pilot is getting paid regularly to fly and
>> the other isn't.
>
> No, other differences include employer sponsored flight simulator
> training, total hours of fly time accumulated, etc.

Oh, so if the flight simulator training isn't sponsored, then it doesn't
count.

And as noted I know of amateur pilots with more flight time than some of
those professionals you rave about.

So, again, it seem to be time to again, ask why you think being paid makes
you a better pilot?


>
>> So why do you think being paid makes you a better pilot?
>
> HOURS flown.
>
> Simulator time.
>
> Training.
>
> That sort of thing.

None of which has anything to do with your being paid to fly as a full time
job.

>>>> pro·fes·sion·al
>>>> 1. relating to or connected with a profession.
>>>> "young professional people"
>>>> synonyms: white-collar, nonmanual
>>
>> So a lawyer who is a pilot in his spare time is a "professional pilot"?
>
> Not my cite.

Ah, so you agree with it, and then called on it immediately disavow it.

Oh, so let's accept that this definition doesn't apply.


>> I think not. As such this definition does not apply to what you asserted.
>
> Not my assertion.

Oh, so you're saying you do support that definition?

So tell me again how a lawyer with just enough training and hours to qualify
as a pilot should be flying a 747 since they are a 'professional' pilot.

Come on dude, you've got to stand up and take a stand or it's going to make
me think you don't even know what you meant when you claimed that only a
"professional pilot" can fly a 747.


>
>>>> "people in professional occupations"
>>>> 2. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
>>>> occupation rather than as a pastime.
>>
>> This is the one that would apply.
>>
>> as in the use of a "professional pilot"
>>
>> So tell me again, why you think being paid makes you a better pilot?
>
> This is getting tiresome.
>
> #1 - watch the attributions.

Ah, so a lawyer, who has just managed to complete flight school and get a
pilots license should be flying that 747 over someone with thousands of
hours of flight time, hundreds of hours of simulator time, tons of
experience and a working knowledge of the operational procedures and layout
of hundreds of airports.

Right....after all being a white collar worker clearly means you must be a
superior pilot, even if it's only a hobby and you can barely fly the plane.


> AND:
>
>
> HOURS flown.
>
> Simulator time.
>
> Training.
>
> That sort of thing.

Which has NOTHING to do with being a white collar worker, OR being paid to
fly planes.

So, tell me again why you claim an amateur with all these things can't fly a
747?


Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:49:28 PM7/29/17
to
Please tell me you're not going to claim professional pilots lack:

"standards, resume, training,
verification, etc."

http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/faa-nprm-on-pilot-professionalism/

>>> The only difference can be one pilot is getting paid regularly to fly
>>> and the other isn't.
>>
>> No, other differences include employer sponsored flight simulator
>> training, total hours of fly time accumulated, etc.
>
> Oh, so if the flight simulator training isn't sponsored, then it doesn't
> count.

Did I ever say that?

There a goodly number of private flight schools.

In fact airlines will use them for training too.

> And as noted I know of amateur pilots with more flight time than some of
> those professionals you rave about.

Total flight time is one thing.

Total hours in a given air frame is another thing.
> So, again, it seem to be time to again, ask why you think being paid
> makes you a better pilot?

The answer still eludes you?

"standards, resume, training,
verification, etc."

http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/faa-nprm-on-pilot-professionalism/

Here is a summary of the specifics from the Federal Register notice:

Proposed provision Summary of proposed provision
Operations familiarization for new-hire pilots (§ 121.432(d)) •
Operations familiarization must include a minimum of 2 operating cycles.
A new-hire pilot completing operations familiarization must occupy the
flight deck observer seat.
Upgrade training curriculum requirements (§§ 121.420 and 121.426) •
Upgrade ground and flight training requirements have been updated based
on the qualification and experience that all upgrading pilots now have
as a result of the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements
for Air Carrier Operations rule requirements.
• Leadership and command and mentoring training must be included in the
upgrade curriculum. Leadership and command and mentoring training are
required subjects for upgrade ground training. Leadership and command
training must also be incorporated into flight training through
scenario-based training. (Note: For those air carriers that use an
initial curriculum to qualify pilots to serve as PICs, leadership and
command and mentoring training must be provided as part of that initial
curriculum (§§ 121.419 and 121.424)).
Leadership and command and mentoring ground training for pilots
currently serving as PIC (§ 121.429) • All pilots currently serving as
PIC must complete ground training on leadership and command and
mentoring. • The Administrator may credit previous training completed by
the pilot at that air carrier.
Recurrent PIC leadership and command and mentoring training
(§§ 121.409(b) and 121.427) • PICs must complete recurrent leadership
and command and mentoring ground training every 36 months. • Recurrent
Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) must provide an opportunity for
PICs to demonstrate leadership and command.
Pilot professional development committee (PPDC) (§ 121.17) • Air
carriers must establish and maintain a PPDC to develop, administer, and
oversee formal pilot mentoring programs. The PPDC must consist of at
least one management representative and one pilot representative. The
PPDC must meet on a regular basis. The frequency of such meetings would
be determined by the air carrier, but must occur at least annually.
Pilot recurrent ground training content and programmed hours (§ 121.427)
• Pilot recurrent ground training has been aligned with the pilot
initial ground training requirements for pilots who have completed the
Airline Transport Pilot Certification Training Program (ATP-CTP). As a
result, the existing content and corresponding programmed hours for
recurrent ground training have been reduced.
Part 135 Operators and Part 91 Subpart K Program Managers Complying with
Part 121, Subparts N and O • Part 135 operators and part 91 subpart K
(91K) program managers complying with part 121 subparts N and O would
continue to use the existing upgrade curriculum requirements and the
proposed leadership and command and mentoring training would only apply
to PICs serving in operations that use two or more pilots.
Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Conforming Changes (Part 121,
subparts N and O and appendices E, F, and H) • Part 121, subparts N and
O and appendices E, F, and H are updated as follows: (1) Reflect the
terminology currently used to identify FSTDs approved for use in part
121 training programs; (2) Remove references to simulation technology
that no longer exists; and (3) Remove requirement for FAA certification
of training and remove pilot experience prerequisites for using a Level
C full flight simulator (FFS) to reflect advances in current FSTD
technology.
SIC Training and Checking Conforming Changes (Part 121 appendices E and
F) • Part 121 appendices E and F are updated to align with the current
14 CFR 61.71 requirements for SICs to obtain a type rating in a part 121
training program. Initial, conversion, and transition SIC training and
checking must include the few training and checking maneuvers and
procedures formerly designated in appendices E and F as PIC-only.
Other Conforming and Miscellaneous Changes • Pilot transition ground
training has been aligned with the pilot initial ground training for
pilots who have completed the ATP-CTP. • The term used to identify the
training provided to flight engineers qualifying as SICs on the same
airplane type has been changed from “upgrade” to “conversion.”
• Conversion ground training for flight engineers who have completed the
ATP-CTP has been aligned with the pilot initial ground training for
pilots who have completed the ATP-CTP.
• Part 121 appendices E and F and § 121.434 are amended to allow for
pictorial means for the training and checking of preflight visual
inspections of the exterior and interior of the airplane.
>>
>>> So why do you think being paid makes you a better pilot?
>>
>> HOURS flown.
>>
>> Simulator time.
>>
>> Training.
>>
>> That sort of thing.
>
> None of which has anything to do with your being paid to fly as a full
> time job.

Of course it does.

You're being even sillier than Klaus now!

>>>>> pro·fes·sion·al
>>>>> 1. relating to or connected with a profession.
>>>>> "young professional people"
>>>>> synonyms: white-collar, nonmanual
>>>
>>> So a lawyer who is a pilot in his spare time is a "professional pilot"?
>>
>> Not my cite.
>
> Ah, so you agree with it,

No. I agree he's a professional lawyer.

> and then called on it immediately disavow it.

And an amateur pilot...

> Oh, so let's accept that this definition doesn't apply.

Your words, your call.


>>> I think not. As such this definition does not apply to what you
>>> asserted.
>>
>> Not my assertion.
>
> Oh, so you're saying you do support that definition?

Nope.

> So tell me again how a lawyer with just enough training and hours to
> qualify as a pilot should be flying a 747 since they are a
> 'professional' pilot.

You're being recklessly silly with your verbiage.

> Come on dude, you've got to stand up and take a stand or it's going to
> make me think you don't even know what you meant when you claimed that
> only a "professional pilot" can fly a 747.

I never made that claim.

I would prefer a professional pilot fly any 747 I'm in though.

The Harrison Ford's of the world tend to evince some sloppy runway
protocols.

>>>>> "people in professional occupations"
>>>>> 2. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
>>>>> occupation rather than as a pastime.
>>>
>>> This is the one that would apply.
>>>
>>> as in the use of a "professional pilot"
>>>
>>> So tell me again, why you think being paid makes you a better pilot?
>>
>> This is getting tiresome.
>>
>> #1 - watch the attributions.
>
> Ah, so a lawyer, who has just managed to complete flight school and get
> a pilots license should be flying that 747 over someone with thousands
> of hours of flight time, hundreds of hours of simulator time, tons of
> experience and a working knowledge of the operational procedures and
> layout of hundreds of airports.

You're regurgitating your own rhetoric.

Not playing, thanks.

> Right....after all being a white collar worker clearly means you must be
> a superior pilot, even if it's only a hobby and you can barely fly the
> plane.

Do you regularly get this wrapped up in your own rhetoric?

Not much rational discipline in your thinking for sure.

>> AND:
>>
>>
>> HOURS flown.
>>
>> Simulator time.
>>
>> Training.
>>
>> That sort of thing.
>
> Which has NOTHING to do with being a white collar worker, OR being paid
> to fly planes.

This "white collar worker" obfuscation is your own invention.

It is however irrelevant to any of the points made.

> So, tell me again why you claim an amateur with all these things can't
> fly a 747?

So show me again - where did I make that claim?

Use an exact quotation please.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:49:56 PM7/29/17
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 13:28:25 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:


>You are acting like tRudey.


You're acting like a Birther.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:54:37 PM7/29/17
to
Not biting, try fresher bait, LOL!

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:55:53 PM7/29/17
to
You just did. You're dismissed.

Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 3:57:57 PM7/29/17
to


"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
news:b6opnc1pvuur1sri5...@4ax.com...
Yea, but as a 'fact checker' they should not only present their own sources
of information, but also to verify that information all the way back to the
source(s).

Otherwise, they are nothing more than an opinion site.

> But, as I think you'll agree, their marital status or other jobs have
> nothing to do with their cites. Do they lean to the left? Maybe.
> They're still a useful source of information.

Sometimes, but so is Wikipedia and I have more confidence in Wiki's accuracy
than that of this 'fact checking site'.


>
> I don't know of ANY similar site that has 100% accuracy.

Didn't say they needed 100% accuracy, but as a fact checking site, they
should strive for that and should produce results that closely approach that
level of accuracy.


Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:01:35 PM7/29/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:olinoe$cor$3...@news.mixmin.net...
Nor would it improve their status as a fact checker, because you're suppose
to check the facts all the way back to the source....now just until you find
some source that claims to support/refute what is being 'fact checked'.

I don't know how many times I've seen separate accounts of something....that
all track back to the same source and with little or no factual basis for
what was stated there.

Yet, I could present additional sources claiming this myth is true, and even
give those sources.....but I wouldn't be fact checking.


>> If, for example, they are
>> citing some leftist rag, one could easily dismiss their "findings."
>
> One does too.

More to the point, they should be dismissing that source unless they can
confirm the information as accurate because they....wait for it..... fact
checked it.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:01:59 PM7/29/17
to
I don't use "bait", that's your game.

> You're dismissed.

You're a fool.


Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:04:42 PM7/29/17
to
True.

And they certainly make it "seem" like they are doing so.

> Otherwise, they are nothing more than an opinion site.

That they are based upon loaded editorial bias.

The "fact checking" is a veneer, a guise, a ruse to coat their editorial
slant with.

>> But, as I think you'll agree, their marital status or other jobs have
>> nothing to do with their cites. Do they lean to the left? Maybe.
>> They're still a useful source of information.
>
> Sometimes, but so is Wikipedia and I have more confidence in Wiki's
> accuracy than that of this 'fact checking site'.

I would tend to agree with you there.

But wikipedia in the early days was an easily defaced mess.


>>
>> I don't know of ANY similar site that has 100% accuracy.
>
> Didn't say they needed 100% accuracy, but as a fact checking site, they
> should strive for that and should produce results that closely approach
> that level of accuracy.

Agreed.

Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:07:30 PM7/29/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:olinjv$cor$1...@news.mixmin.net...
> On 7/29/2017 1:22 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>> news:lrkpncp6vo0jito40...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:22:50 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:19:00 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROFLMAO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now you're just joking around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I love this story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well of course you would. So did Tyrebiter.
>>>>>
>>>>> It says what you want to hear.
>>>>> It's not from a "professional."
>>>>> It's from a blogger who admits he's not always right.
>>>>
>>>> Wait, is that sort of like using non-credentialed hookers and druggies
>>>> to "fact check?"
>>>>
>>>> Lol.
>>>
>>> Yeah, funny how you're so willing to accept "facts" from one amateur
>>> but not from another.
>>>
>>> [chuckle]
>>>
>>> You're dismissed.
>>
>> I think the point here shouldn't be whether they are amateurs or
>> professionals, but rather whether they have the experience, knowledge,
>> education and training to do the job.
>
> Hookers and druggies tend not to, as opposed to credentialed journalists.

Sadly though while they made have that, what they often lack is the ethics
to not print crap they know or suspect is false.

>
>> Including having a means which they have independent checkers cross
>> checking their claims. As it is there is no indication that experience,
>> knowledge, education or training as a fact checker are required to work
>> with Snopes, nor is there any process by which their results are
>> verified, certified, or otherwise confirmed as stating the facts as they
>> actually exist.
>
> Well, there is google...
>
> ;-)

Which isn't a fact checking site either. It can be used to fact check, but
since that is what snopes is SUPPOSE to be doing..


>> In short, competence and verification of what they assert as the facts
>> are what we should be looking at.
>
> Of course.

Yep, and as such that should be what the focus is. They either are doing
that, or they are just a blog.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:11:22 PM7/29/17
to
Correct.

>>> If, for example, they are
>>> citing some leftist rag, one could easily dismiss their "findings."
>>
>> One does too.
>
> More to the point, they should be dismissing that source unless they can
> confirm the information as accurate because they....wait for it.....
> fact checked it.

Shocking veracity!

Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:11:35 PM7/29/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:olios3$fco$1...@news.mixmin.net...
No, as I've stated. You on the other hand seem to be clearly stating that
amateur pilots all lack these things.

>http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/faa-nprm-on-pilot-professionalism/

The fact this needs to be made a rule...would seem to refute your claims
that all professional pilots have these things.

Meanwhile, as shown above it seems clear you're not longer even trying to
address my points, but simply reguratate the same assertions as I've already
addressed.

<snip>

Try again when you don't have to set up straw men to attack.


Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:14:50 PM7/29/17
to
Very true.

But what else would one expect from hookers and druggies?


>>> Including having a means which they have independent checkers cross
>>> checking their claims. As it is there is no indication that
>>> experience, knowledge, education or training as a fact checker are
>>> required to work with Snopes, nor is there any process by which their
>>> results are verified, certified, or otherwise confirmed as stating
>>> the facts as they actually exist.
>>
>> Well, there is google...
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Which isn't a fact checking site either. It can be used to fact check,
> but since that is what snopes is SUPPOSE to be doing..

GooGoo is disseminating their own ranking bias constantly.


>>> In short, competence and verification of what they assert as the
>>> facts are what we should be looking at.
>>
>> Of course.
>
> Yep, and as such that should be what the focus is. They either are doing
> that, or they are just a blog.

Worse, they're FRAUDS.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:17:02 PM7/29/17
to
I say no such thing.

I have said no such thing.

I simply do not want an amateur pilot flying me in a 747.

Got it now?

>> http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/faa-nprm-on-pilot-professionalism/
>
> The fact this needs to be made a rule...would seem to refute your claims
> that all professional pilots have these things.

And what do amateur pilots have?

Tighter standards for professionals is not evidence of a lack of
standards at all, rather it's proof they are under constant evolution.

> Meanwhile, as shown above it seems clear you're not longer even trying
> to address my points, but simply reguratate the same assertions as I've
> already addressed.
>
> <snip>
>
> Try again when you don't have to set up straw men to attack.

Stop projecting.

You and Klaus went straw man, not me.

Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:24:12 PM7/29/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:oliqfs$gqr$9...@news.mixmin.net...
Oh, well as long as it's your opinion then you're free to feel however you
like.

But tell me, if someone pays that pilot to fly you does that suddenly make
them a better pilot?



Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 4:58:16 PM7/29/17
to
Thank you for that!

> But tell me, if someone pays that pilot to fly you does that suddenly
> make them a better pilot?

Only if it's their main profession.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 5:02:45 PM7/29/17
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:57:44 -0400, "Scout"
Probably true, and it may be my fault for assuming that folks use
places like Snopes as a basis for fact checking and not an end-all
be-all authority.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 5:24:43 PM7/29/17
to
"May be"?

Snopes purports to be _the_ authoritative internet fact check site.

And they do predate "Politifact" and most of the others.

But they are little more than a left wing editorial site.

I'm sorry you felt the need to carry water for them.

Shake it off...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWlot6h_JM

Scout

unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 11:52:13 PM7/29/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:olist4$m7d$4...@news.mixmin.net...
So getting a job immediately turns a crappy pilot into a wonderful
pilot......

Amazing, I wasn't aware that hearing the words "you're hired" can impart
such a level of skill, knowledge and experience.


Seaview

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:03:01 AM7/30/17
to
"Immediately" is your modifier.

Why do you keep introducing specious modifiers that relate to not one
fragment of the conversation?


> Amazing, I wasn't aware that hearing the words "you're hired" can impart
> such a level of skill, knowledge and experience.

Amazing, you write entire scripts for you to act back upon yourself.


Scout

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:33:04 AM7/30/17
to


"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
news:rstpnc9ias4hnva9k...@4ax.com...
Klaus, you know better than that....how many people have you seen, in this
very newsgroup, cite a Snoops article as being the end of the discussion?

Further, how often, of your own personal knowledge, have you found the 'fact
checking' of Snoops to be incomplete, inadequate, or otherwise significantly
lacking in accuracy?

They find secondary sources that support their views, they post those
sources to support/refute other claims and many people accept their claims
as if the site had actually done the fact checking they claim they are
doing.

If they were fact checking, then they shouldn't stop until the get to the
primary source(s) and then validate the accuracy of any claims within those
sources.

They don't, or at least not nearly well enough.


de chucka

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:37:25 AM7/30/17
to
It would be nice in those situations if the errors were pointed out on
this ng, for some reason they never are

Scout

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 1:06:46 AM7/30/17
to


"Seaview" <adm...@nelson.le> wrote in message
news:oljlpj$vkq$2...@news.mixmin.net...
Q: What is the difference between an amateur and a professional?
A: "You're hired".

You set the conditions, now you don't want to abide by them.




Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 10:29:28 AM7/30/17
to
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 00:32:54 -0400, "Scout"
These aren't real people. :)

>Further, how often, of your own personal knowledge, have you found the 'fact
>checking' of Snoops to be incomplete, inadequate, or otherwise significantly
>lacking in accuracy?

Not always. But if they are covering a particular topic it's ALWAYS a
great place to *begin*.

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 11:39:56 AM7/30/17
to
On 7/29/2017 10:37 PM, de chucka wrote:
> It would be nice in those situations if the errors were pointed out on
> this ng,

It would be "nice" if you fucking swallowed a blasting cap and set it
off, you gutless Auztard gun-grabbing PUSSY!

Seaview

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 11:41:34 AM7/30/17
to
What constitutes due diligence on a hire - resume?

Total hours?

Military training?

> You set the conditions, now you don't want to abide by them.

Listen to me pissant, and HERE ME NOW!

YOU are the shitbag playing semantics, not ME!

NOW FUCK OFF AND DIE!

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 11:46:59 AM7/30/17
to
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 09:41:29 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:

>Listen to me pissant, and HERE ME NOW!
>
>YOU are the shitbag playing semantics, not ME!
>
>NOW FUCK OFF AND DIE!

"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
-Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:03:38 PM7/30/17
to
Then why do you "play" with them, cunt?

>> Further, how often, of your own personal knowledge, have you found the 'fact
>> checking' of Snoops to be incomplete, inadequate, or otherwise significantly
>> lacking in accuracy?
>
> Not always. But if they are covering a particular topic it's ALWAYS a
> great place to *begin*.


It's _always_ worth letting a so-called "conservative" who you who they
really are!

Nice work, hypocrite, you fucking annihilated your credibility big time.

Seaview

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:06:11 PM7/30/17
to
Your time is nigh, motherfucker.

Book it.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:07:43 PM7/30/17
to
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 10:03:32 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:


>It's _always_ worth letting a so-called "conservative" who you who they
>really are!

Want to try that again, only in English this time?

>Nice work, hypocrite, you fucking annihilated your credibility big time.

[chuckle]

You birthers get upset easily. Have you tried that medical marijuana
everyone's talking about?

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:13:42 PM7/30/17
to
My time is 9:13 AM, actually.

Say, it's not Talk Like a Pirate Day, is it?

[chuckle]

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:16:43 PM7/30/17
to
On 7/30/2017 10:07 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> [chuckle]
>
> You birthers get upset easily.

You Obummer shills no longer qualify as credible conservatives, cuntface.

I'd be pleased to BEAT YOUR FACE IN!

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:17:50 PM7/30/17
to
Well of COURSE you would! LOL

So besides "Seaview" what other puppets are you using?

Seaview

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:18:22 PM7/30/17
to
On 7/30/2017 10:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 10:06:06 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/2017 9:46 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 09:41:29 -0600, Seaview <adm...@nelson.le> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Listen to me pissant, and HERE ME NOW!
>>>>
>>>> YOU are the shitbag playing semantics, not ME!
>>>>
>>>> NOW FUCK OFF AND DIE!
>>>
>>> "Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
>>> -Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
>>>
>>
>> Your time is nigh, motherfucker.
>>
>> Book it.
>
> My time is 9:13 AM,

I don't care when you want to DIE, I just care that you DO die!


Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:20:39 PM7/30/17
to
[yawn]

Mmmmm-kay.

ROFL


Seaview

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:34:06 PM7/30/17
to
Yep.

Now watch your back, for the rest of your GODDAMNED LIFE!

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:34:32 PM7/30/17
to
On 7/30/2017 10:17 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 10:16:37 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/2017 10:07 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> [chuckle]
>>>
>>> You birthers get upset easily.
>>
>> You Obummer shills no longer qualify as credible conservatives, cuntface.
>>
>> I'd be pleased to BEAT YOUR FACE IN!
>
> Well of COURSE you would! LOL

And others too.

Watch your back, cunt.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:43:10 PM7/30/17
to
ROFLMAO

Is that you, Gunner? Am I on your "cull list" now?

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:44:04 PM7/30/17
to
I really don't think that will be necessary, do you?

I'll just wave a copy of Obama's birth certificate at you and your
head will explode- problem solved.

[chuckle]

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:49:04 PM7/30/17
to
Yep.

Watch your back, cunt.

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:51:20 PM7/30/17
to
You were _ALWAYS_ on that list traitor.

Now you just moved UP.

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:51:48 PM7/30/17
to
On 7/30/2017 10:44 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 10:34:27 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/2017 10:17 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 10:16:37 -0600, Spain <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/30/2017 10:07 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> [chuckle]
>>>>>
>>>>> You birthers get upset easily.
>>>>
>>>> You Obummer shills no longer qualify as credible conservatives, cuntface.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be pleased to BEAT YOUR FACE IN!
>>>
>>> Well of COURSE you would! LOL
>>
>> And others too.
>>
>> Watch your back, cunt.
>
> I really don't think that will be necessary, do you?

Oh yes, I really disagree cunt.

Watch your back.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:53:53 PM7/30/17
to
LOL I don't think that will be necessary, do you?

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:56:06 PM7/30/17
to
AWESOME!


>Now you just moved UP.

What can I do to get to the number one position?

Will insulting Trump do it? Because he's, like, the biggest dumb ass
in America, you know.

What about complimenting Michelle Obama's shapely derriere? Would THAT
get me to the coveted #1 spot?

DO tell.

LOL

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 12:57:56 PM7/30/17
to
I think I'll just stay at DEFCON 5 for now. LOL

>Watch your back.

I am laughing at you impotentn suggestion.

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 1:46:24 PM7/30/17
to
Oh it already is.

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 1:46:53 PM7/30/17
to
You already did it.

Spain

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 1:47:26 PM7/30/17
to
You're deaf and dumb.

Watch that act collapse.

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 1:50:53 PM7/30/17
to
>> I think I'll just stay at DEFCON 5 for now. LOL
>
>You're deaf and dumb.
>Watch that act collapse.

What do you suppose will ever make THAT happen?

Say! You don't plan to kill me by making me die laughing, do you?

[chuckle]

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages