It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
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.
Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Too much logic for him; and he probably doesn't know what subliminal messaging is.
If any of you have ever seen the movie Fight Club, there is a scene where Tyler Durden splices pornographic images onto the films in movie theatres while working as a night-time employee. People don't consciously realize the images, but their subconscious does register it. What is taken in by the subconscious, can very much effect the conscious mind. So even if you didn't so much see it consciously, you sure as hell did sub-consciously.
Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
It's odd being awakened to all of the symbols and such, then going back through things of your past, and spotting them, wondering "How did I ever miss that??"
Originally posted by laughingdog
1) I haven't spent the time to research their fact finding
2) some of their subject matter is down right silly...
3) also I am not sure if their politics are to my liking...
4) basically I just don't trust this outfit.
5) I get the feeling ATSrs don't like em either
Originally posted by laughingdog
Fact: The liberal slant has this country sliding down the tubes . . .
Originally posted by laughingdog
Originally posted by hawkiye
"Because they have been caught lying and distorting and taking things out of context. So they cannot be trusted..." Thats what I was looking for, the root of this original post, spot on.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I can tell you why I don't like them.
One, they are very biased politically.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Two, they flat out LIE when it comes to anything that would reflect badly on Disney. . . . Examples? The Little Mermaid VHS case . . . with that explicit "artwork" on the cover. Saw it, and there is NO doubt that was intentional.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
If you write [snopes], pointing out, with clear proof, that they are wrong, they act like you don't know anything, won't address the evidence, and basically blow off whatever you tell them.
Originally posted by TheKnox
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I can tell you why I don't like them.
One, they are very biased politically.
It's great that you think that and I can understand why it would cause you to dislike them, but I just wanted to note as an aside that it has nothing to do with wether or not they are truthful or accurate.
Originally posted by TheKnox
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Two, they flat out LIE when it comes to anything that would reflect badly on Disney. . . . Examples? The Little Mermaid VHS case . . . with that explicit "artwork" on the cover. Saw it, and there is NO doubt that was intentional.
This is just anecdotal evidence and is purely subjective. It doesn't demonstrate well at all that snopes is lying. What did they lie about? Where is the quote from snopes? Where are your sources? Did they lie about the contractor? Did they lie about wether Disney knew about the alleged intentional artwork? This is merely a he said/she said assertion and isn't really useful to determine the trustworthiness of a site dedicated to debunking myths.
Originally posted by TheKnox
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
If you write [snopes], pointing out, with clear proof, that they are wrong, they act like you don't know anything, won't address the evidence, and basically blow off whatever you tell them.
First, I would note that I wonder what qualifies for "clear proof" since I've haven't seen any yet.
As for the rest, if they won't address evidence that is their loss. If they "blow off" whatever they're told they either don't have time to deal with poorly laid out arguments (such as those offered in your above post) or there is an exaggeration in your analysis of their response. Either way the problem stems not from them, but elsewhere...
Also is this a general remark about ALL their correspondence as implied, or us it just your interpretation of their reaction to your personal communication with them (which is suspiciously hidden from all of us to analyze)?
Snopes disagreeing with you doesn't make them liars, it doesn't make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make them untrustworthy. This is just a patently obvious ad hominem attack. All we can conclude is that they disagree with you.