Snopes.com - The Liberals' Answer to Glenn Beck

[thegreekdog]

Fine, fine. Chill out. I'm not defending anyone. I know you're capable of paying attention so please take note of whenever someone is prepared to agree with you. I didn't think Greek pitbulls were this aggressive... sheesh!

Also what Sultan said.

You're defending a misleading blurb on a website. Fine, I overreacted... so what? I'll fight you.

[MeDeFe]

In all seriousness, Obama did say he had visited all 57 states; not sure what the red mark is doing there.

maybe you should read the fucking article? http://snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.

The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.

it's not just about that. it's about a specific popular email forward which claims "obama said he visited 57 states [true] and this is a SECRET NOD TO HIS SINISTER PLAN TO ENMUSLIMATE AMERICA [false]"

therefore the article gets the "partially true and partially false" designation

what is so hard to understand about this

What's hard to understand is that a specific popular email chain claim is something that should interest anyone in the least. In other words, if you're gullible and stupid enough to believe that Obama visited 57 states because of some terroristic plot cooked up by Satan and Khaleid Sheik Mohammad to destroy America, a website called snopes ain't going to help you.

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?

Reading comprehension?

[thegreekdog]

You win, I give up.

[SultanOfSurreal]

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?

the article isn't marked true or false. it's marked as a mixture of both, which is the correct designation. now, adults with attention spans longer than a few seconds are more than capable of going to the full article and seeing why that designation was handed out. all the information is there. so unless you're worried about all the people with ADD snopes has been misleading over the years, i'm seriously confused about what your problem is.

[MeDeFe]

You win, I give up.

Yay! Group hug!

[Woodruff]

In all seriousness, Obama did say he had visited all 57 states; not sure what the red mark is doing there.

maybe you should read the fucking article? http://snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.

The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.

That's like Phatscotty saying that "Obama bows to Muslim leaders" as an implication that he is submissive to them. The "fact of the matter" is that Obama has bowed to Muslim leaders. However, the way that fact is being used is where the falsehood comes into play. Thus, the "true and false information involved", which is why it has a red mark.

Or, as Sultan so eloquently put it...maybe you should read the fucking article. <chuckle>

[Woodruff]

In all seriousness, Obama did say he had visited all 57 states; not sure what the red mark is doing there.

maybe you should read the fucking article? http://snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.

The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.

it's not just about that. it's about a specific popular email forward which claims "obama said he visited 57 states [true] and this is a SECRET NOD TO HIS SINISTER PLAN TO ENMUSLIMATE AMERICA [false]"

therefore the article gets the "partially true and partially false" designation

what is so hard to understand about this

What's hard to understand is that a specific popular email chain claim is something that should interest anyone in the least.

That's actually a lot of what Snopes does.

[thegreekdog]

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?

the article isn't marked true or false. it's marked as a mixture of both, which is the correct designation. now, adults with attention spans longer than a few seconds are more than capable of going to the full article and seeing why that designation was handed out. all the information is there. so unless you're worried about all the people with ADD snopes has been misleading over the years, i'm seriously confused about what your problem is.

I lied, I'm not giving up.

The statement (the statement!) is not a mixture of both truth and falsehood. The statement is either true or false (I have a beef with the other ones, my beef is just much larger with this one). If I said to you "Your username is SultanofCereal," that is either a true statement or a false statement, not a mixture of both. If I said "Your username is SultanofCereal and people call you that to make fun of you because you're an idiot," that statement is a mixture and requires a larger explanation.

So, I propose that snopes.com should have indicated in the statement what could have possibly made it true or false.

[Phatscotty]

we'll, that's what kind of peeps we have to deal with here....ya know. glenn beck crunches numbers all day, reads books all night, and performs miracles in his sleep. pretty much the same thing snopes does, just the opposite though.

[thegreekdog]

In all seriousness, Obama did say he had visited all 57 states; not sure what the red mark is doing there.

maybe you should read the fucking article? http://snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.

The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.

That's like Phatscotty saying that "Obama bows to Muslim leaders" as an implication that he is submissive to them. The "fact of the matter" is that Obama has bowed to Muslim leaders. However, the way that fact is being used is where the falsehood comes into play. Thus, the "true and false information involved", which is why it has a red mark.

Or, as Sultan so eloquently put it...maybe you should read the fucking article. <chuckle>

Okay, let's take the Phatster example.

snopes.com writes "Obama bows to Muslim leaders." - true. I agree with that (assuming that he bows to Muslim leaders)
snopes.com writes "Obama bows to Muslim leaders." - true/false. I don't agree with that.
snopes.com writes "Obama bows to Muslim leaders as an implication that he is submissive to them." - true/false. I agree with that.

I read the fucking article... and, as I said, who the f*ck cares? What ridiculous people believe that shit?

[Woodruff]

In all seriousness, Obama did say he had visited all 57 states; not sure what the red mark is doing there.

maybe you should read the fucking article? http://snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.

The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.

That's like Phatscotty saying that "Obama bows to Muslim leaders" as an implication that he is submissive to them. The "fact of the matter" is that Obama has bowed to Muslim leaders. However, the way that fact is being used is where the falsehood comes into play. Thus, the "true and false information involved", which is why it has a red mark.

Or, as Sultan so eloquently put it...maybe you should read the fucking article. <chuckle>

Okay, let's take the Phatster example.

snopes.com writes "Obama bows to Muslim leaders." - true. I agree with that (assuming that he bows to Muslim leaders)
snopes.com writes "Obama bows to Muslim leaders." - true/false. I don't agree with that.
snopes.com writes "Obama bows to Muslim leaders as an implication that he is submissive to them." - true/false. I agree with that.
I read the fucking article... and, as I said, who the f*ck cares? What ridiculous people believe that shit?

Are you new here? What have you done with thegreekdog?

[thegreekdog]

No, I just dug myself into this hole and I'm trying to justify the continuous digging. I should have given up when I said I did.

[SultanOfSurreal]

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?

the article isn't marked true or false. it's marked as a mixture of both, which is the correct designation. now, adults with attention spans longer than a few seconds are more than capable of going to the full article and seeing why that designation was handed out. all the information is there. so unless you're worried about all the people with ADD snopes has been misleading over the years, i'm seriously confused about what your problem is.

I lied, I'm not giving up.

The statement (the statement!) is not a mixture of both truth and falsehood. The statement is either true or false (I have a beef with the other ones, my beef is just much larger with this one). If I said to you "Your username is SultanofCereal," that is either a true statement or a false statement, not a mixture of both. If I said "Your username is SultanofCereal and people call you that to make fun of you because you're an idiot," that statement is a mixture and requires a larger explanation.

So, I propose that snopes.com should have indicated in the statement what could have possibly made it true or false.

man you sure are jumping through hoops to defend yourself after being called out for not reading the article before you shot your mouth off

EDIT hahahaha guess i'm right

No, I just dug myself into this hole and I'm trying to justify the continuous digging. I should have given up when I said I did.

[thegreekdog]

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?

the article isn't marked true or false. it's marked as a mixture of both, which is the correct designation. now, adults with attention spans longer than a few seconds are more than capable of going to the full article and seeing why that designation was handed out. all the information is there. so unless you're worried about all the people with ADD snopes has been misleading over the years, i'm seriously confused about what your problem is.

I lied, I'm not giving up.

The statement (the statement!) is not a mixture of both truth and falsehood. The statement is either true or false (I have a beef with the other ones, my beef is just much larger with this one). If I said to you "Your username is SultanofCereal," that is either a true statement or a false statement, not a mixture of both. If I said "Your username is SultanofCereal and people call you that to make fun of you because you're an idiot," that statement is a mixture and requires a larger explanation.

So, I propose that snopes.com should have indicated in the statement what could have possibly made it true or false.

man you sure are jumping through hoops to defend yourself after being called out for not reading the article before you shot your mouth off

I'm trying, but you guys aren't leaving me alone. If you left me alone, I'd win.

[thegreekdog]

Another thing they teach us in law school - never stop arguing even when you lose. I've tried to stop doing that, but it's hard.

[Phatscotty]

maybe you should read the fucking article? http://snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.

The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.

That's like Phatscotty saying that "Obama bows to Muslim leaders" as an implication that he is submissive to them. The "fact of the matter" is that Obama has bowed to Muslim leaders. However, the way that fact is being used is where the falsehood comes into play. Thus, the "true and false information involved", which is why it has a red mark.

Or, as Sultan so eloquently put it...maybe you should read the fucking article. <chuckle>

Okay, let's take the Phatster example.

snopes.com writes "Obama bows to Muslim leaders." - true. I agree with that (assuming that he bows to Muslim leaders)
snopes.com writes "Obama bows to Muslim leaders." - true/false. I don't agree with that.
snopes.com writes "Obama bows to Muslim leaders as an implication that he is submissive to them." - true/false. I agree with that.
I read the fucking article... and, as I said, who the f*ck cares? What ridiculous people believe that shit?

Are you new here? What have you done with thegreekdog?

Well, I completely disagree with the context you all are quoting me on. You are close, but your interpretation was not my intent. for the love of pete stop seeing what you want to see. sorry about that waste of time. Woody one more like this and I'm attaching a discalimer that will destroy any credibility you have whenever quoting me.

You've been warned. I don't mind talking to you, really. I'm not pissed but look now everyone is branching out into the possibilities LOL

[thegreekdog]

Scotty, this is about me not reading the article and continuing to argue like I know what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with whether you think President Obama is deferential to Muslims.

[Phatscotty]

Scotty, this is about me not reading the article and continuing to argue like I know what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with whether you think President Obama is deferential to Muslims.

yes this happens everytime Woody is around. I will be "tapdancing" by the bottom of the next page based on this now.....you watch. for the record I severely challenge Woodys twisting of my meanings as an example pertaing to you guyses tiffy

[MeDeFe]

Scotty, this is about me not reading the article and continuing to argue like I know what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with whether you think President Obama is deferential to Muslims.

AH-HA!

If you're losing, attack an easier target and claim victory against that one.

[thegreekdog]

Scotty, this is about me not reading the article and continuing to argue like I know what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with whether you think President Obama is deferential to Muslims.

AH-HA!

If you're losing, attack an easier target and claim victory against that one.

Stop undermining me!!!

[Woodruff]

Scotty, this is about me not reading the article and continuing to argue like I know what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with whether you think President Obama is deferential to Muslims.

yes this happens everytime Woody is around. I will be "tapdancing" by the bottom of the next page based on this now.....you watch. for the record I severely challenge Woodys twisting of my meanings as an example pertaing to you guyses tiffy

Stop trolling and keep on-topic.

[SultanOfSurreal]

greek, even though i've never personally experienced it, i've seen lots of other people proven objectively wrong before. there are two ways to handle it while retaining a modicum of dignity

1) graciously admit you were wrong
2) disappear from the thread and never post there again

what you are doing in lieu of these options is just humiliating for everyone involved. mostly you though.

[MeDeFe]

The third option is to wait until there are another 3 or 4 pages and then return and completely ignore whatever you argued before.

[thegreekdog]

greek, even though i've never personally experienced it, i've seen lots of other people proven objectively wrong before. there are two ways to handle it while retaining a modicum of dignity

1) graciously admit you were wrong
2) disappear from the thread and never post there again

what you are doing in lieu of these options is just humiliating for everyone involved. mostly you though.

I thought I had already done #1, but I guess it wasn't as clear as I anticipated.

I am wrong.

On a somewhat related note, Sultan, you do #2 very well. It's frustrating too, in case you didn't know.

[MeDeFe]

greek, even though i've never personally experienced it, i've seen lots of other people proven objectively wrong before. there are two ways to handle it while retaining a modicum of dignity

1) graciously admit you were wrong
2) disappear from the thread and never post there again

what you are doing in lieu of these options is just humiliating for everyone involved. mostly you though.

I thought I had already done #1, but I guess it wasn't as clear as I anticipated.

I am wrong.

But you retracted your earlier admission after Woodruff failed to participate in the group hug of tolerance and acceptance.