I know why I don't like Snopes... Why doesn't ATS like Snopes?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Yank? Not even close. In this country, that means from up North.


In the rest of the world yank =American
www.urbandictionary.com...




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Urban dictionary is not even a legitimate source....You are beyond help..



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Urban dictionary is not even a legitimate source......


So exactly what is your source for it then?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Common sense is my source....I live in Tennessee, you go calling people yanks around here and you are just begging to get your teeth knocked out of your face...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Because they have been caught lying and distorting and taking things out of context. So they cannot be trusted...


Go ahead and provide some examples.

Or, just ignore facts because you don't like them.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
So I see some people in this thread claiming snopes is full of lies (even though they are failing to prove that) and so everything on snopes is false.

It makes me sad that some people are so invested in their own lies that they can't even acknowledge facts.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


A husband and wife using Google can not be considered a factual "tell-all" source, if someone using Google, can't provide real wellness and nutritional advice...Learn to use some analogies....



That is a phallus dude.....
edit on 10-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Prove they are wrong.

I don't see a phallus, if you do, then wow.


But it is hilarious that you want to use one item to dismiss every other thing on their website.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
Prove they are wrong.

I don't see a phallus, if you do, then wow.

But it is hilarious that you want to use one item to dismiss every other thing on their website.


What does he think of these....
www.google.com.au...:en-GB
fficial&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=UWf vULr8DIPumAWNmYGwBg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1920&bih=927

and here is a statue of a woman holding a penis that looks like she tore off...
www.pommietravels.com...
edit on 10-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 





I don't see a phallus, if you do, then wow.


Willful indenial...gotta love it.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I find it hilarious that people who aren't even American, or let alone live in our country, think they know more than the people who do. Or can quote random facts.....The only people who needs facts spoon-fed to them, are the ones incapable of thinking for themselves in the first place.


Very true! Case in point below?


Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Yank? Not even close. In this country, that means from up North.


In the rest of the world yank =American
www.urbandictionary.com...


No, to the British, who are not the "rest of the world". That's fine. Visit the United States, drive through some small town in the south, and call every local you see a "yank". Go ahead.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Common sense is my source....I live in Tennessee, you go calling people yanks around here and you are just begging to get your teeth knocked out of your face...


Wouldn't that be one for YouTube?
Try and offer some people friendly advice, and you get arguments.....go figure. Still no acknowledgment that the label is bigoted, of course. Just another diversion to try and somehow support Snopes. How that is supposed to help, who can say...guess that's all he's got.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Prove they are wrong.

I don't see a phallus, if you do, then wow.


But it is hilarious that you want to use one item to dismiss every other thing on their website.


I offered MANY examples. Funny how you demand them, then ignore them. As for what you do not see.....well.... If you can't see that for what it is, you have a problem. Pretty much anyone in the world that has seen a real one, and that picture, can see it.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Ah say, ah say, that's an insult beyond toleration.

Callin' me such a thing would be colder than a nudist on an iceberg.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I have some extended family members that count on Snopes as the Bible of all that is true and untrue out there, but I personally have grown to not trust them and too often find their conclusions to not add up - I don't rely on them for "truth" so much, they are just ONE source to consider of MANY...



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


You just keep talking about the little mermaid.

Did you even read the Snopes article and read why they said it was a "false" story? The cases were pulled because of complaints, Disney has always denied it was a phallus and say it was just a tower.

You can fantasize about whatever you think it is, but Snopes is correct, Disney and the artist denied it was a phallus. The email snopes is talking about has this whole detailed backstory about a disgruntled Disney employee that purposely drew a phallus...that is FALSE. Disney did change the covers due to complaints.

This is simple common sense reading comprehension, what don't you get?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


You just keep talking about the little mermaid.

Did you even read the Snopes article and read why they said it was a "false" story? The cases were pulled because of complaints, Disney has always denied it was a phallus and say it was just a tower.

You can fantasize about whatever you think it is, but Snopes is correct, Disney and the artist denied it was a phallus. The email snopes is talking about has this whole detailed backstory about a disgruntled Disney employee that purposely drew a phallus...that is FALSE. Disney did change the covers due to complaints.

This is simple common sense reading comprehension, what don't you get?


I brought up several cases regarding Disney. You focusing on one, and me responding, doesn't mean that's the only one I mentioned.

No one here is "fantasizing" but those denying the clear proof in the picture, that was also shared in the thread. Of COURSE Disney and the artist denied it. There are thousands in prison that denied their crimes in the face of hard evidence, too, but hat doesn't mean they are innocent. Snopes CHOSE what version of the story to address, so that they could claim it as false. The fact is, someone being paid by Disney deliberately drew a phallus on the cover of a childrens' movie. Their denials and obfuscations don't change that fact. Disney did a lot more than just change the cover. They offered to PAY people to send the other one back. They wanted to destroy all the evidence. Didn't work out well for them. Of course, that would not be the first thing they tried covering up, but that's a whole other issue.

In that case, though, Snopes chose the angle, so that they could make people believe the entire story was false. That is why sensible people don't trust them on any sensitive issue.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Ah say, ah say, that's an insult beyond toleration.

Callin' me such a thing would be colder than a nudist on an iceberg.


Cute. Still, calling a LOT of Southerners a "yank" really is an insult. Plus, the term was used, in this case, to be offensive, and claim that all "yanks" were ignorant nutjob religious types, and that one that has morals is somehow inferior.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Cute. Still, calling a LOT of Southerners a "yank" really is an insult. Plus, the term was used, in this case, to be offensive, and claim that all "yanks" were ignorant nutjob religious types, and that one that has morals is somehow inferior.


I am as Suthron as they come. Hell, I could have made it from our farm to the site they did the Ned Beatty scene in Deliverance in an afternoon's horse ride. And yes, it would be a special insult. I was making fun of my reaction to the thought of it as much as the statement itself.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Cute. Still, calling a LOT of Southerners a "yank" really is an insult. Plus, the term was used, in this case, to be offensive, and claim that all "yanks" were ignorant nutjob religious types, and that one that has morals is somehow inferior.


I am as Suthron as they come. Hell, I could have made it from our farm to the site they did the Ned Beatty scene in Deliverance in an afternoon's horse ride. And yes, it would be a special insult. I was making fun of my reaction to the thought of it as much as the statement itself.


Oh, I got that.
Wasn't mad at our comment' actually found it amusing. The phrasing sounded like, well, home. Tennessee-born myself, though far to far from there these days! Your reaction is the sort I wanted to warn the poor guy about. I have family that would take action at such a term, if it was applied to them.

That would be a pretty horse ride - beautiful country!





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join