I don’t find this to be convincing evidence of political bias.
I can’t believe you are all missing the important point. 
The e-mail says the Mikkelsons are ‘very Democratic’ - which means they are liars who want to take your guns / raise your taxes / force your children into gay marriage / burn the US flag / make Islam the official US religion / stop torture / disband the Army. And elect a Ngr to President. :eek::rolleyes::smack:
Sheesh.
That’s really unfair to credit that quote to xtisme. And while it was probably an oversight, your dismissive response was directly to xtisme as though he’s wrong for asking.
>I don’t find this to be convincing evidence of political bias.
Wait, so a site about myths takes a break from its regular scheduled programming to defend Republicans and pretty much dismiss Moore as a loon conspiracy theorist, and thats okay? Not to mention they were dead wrong? Add that the site is also run by a Republican. Hmm, right. No bias there. Insert Fox News slogan here.
I’m pretty sure we’ve discussed this before – I don’t think you can clearly state that the sign was manipulated; that signpost could easily have a sign on both sides of the post. Surely you’ve seen a signpost with signs on both sides before? Or perhaps I’m missing your point.
Considering that the site is hated with a passion by people who spread right-wing glurge emails, this is a really odd tactic to take.
Part of me wants to scream, “We’ve been duped. The OP is obviously a troll.”
The other part of me says, “He’s been a Member of SDMB for six years, with over 13000 posts. How stoopid could he be?”
I dunno… Any ideas?
Yes. He’s genuinely curious about the email. :dubious: Relax, will you?
You’re right. I’m sorry. Thanks.
I’m as liberal as they come, and I dismiss Moore as a loon. (I don’t know that he’s a conspiracy theorist though.)
I know a lot of leftist who dislike Moore as much as they dislike certain “commentators” on the right, for commission of very similar sins.
The sign is facing the tree in the ‘Claim’ photo. It’s facing away from the tree in the other photo.
There is no evidence of there being two sets of signs, in either of the photos. Also, there is no reason for there to be a duplicate set of signs on the off-side (as shown in the ‘Claim’ photo) since there is no road there. Who would see it?
As for my point, they do a good job of turning up facts and providing references. But sometimes they aren’t completely accurate. They’re a good source for citations for most debates, but I would seek additional evidence if I were were shooting for a Nobel Prize.
Yeah, unfortunately, you’re explanation is grossly oversimplistic and also kind of ironic, in that while Snopes has been wrongly accused of liberal bias many times based on many of their entries, you’re accusing them wrongly of conservative bias based on ONE entry in which the most biased comments were removed.
Okay, I’m confused about the snopes/moore/bin laden story.
Here is the Snopes article on the topic. Other websites I’ve found say Snopes changed their answer from “False” to some sort of true-ish value. But the article I just linked to says “false” and categorically states that bin laden family members were not allowed to fly during the no-fly period just after 9/11.
What gives? Did Snopes correct their correction? Was Moore wrong after all?
If snopes is a mom-n-pop shop, that would explain why they won’t comment on Pat Boone’s alleged dick-in-a-box pic:
http://www.que erty.com/wp/docs/2007/11/patboonedick.jpg (NSFW)
All that would remain of the Mikkelsons would be a few charred bones after the attack-dog tighty-righty lawyers got through.
Have they debunked a lot of left-wing glurge emails? AFAICT, liberals either don’t write or don’t forward political glurge, but I’m sure there must be some out there.
Frankly, this whole thing* may be actual proof that reality does have a liberal bias.
*ie., conservative e-mail writers trying to discredit Snopes.
Yeh, Johnny, I don’t think you’ve come anywhere near proving the sign was manipulated. I think it’s just the same on both sides.
Even if the sign was hypothetically rotated to a better angle for the picture, that doesn’t make the photo “not real,” or even substantially change anything. It’s still a small plane crash (the incident and site being verified) in a tree in close proximity to a flight school sign. Nothing significant was “faked,” even if the sign had been turned, and you haven’t demonstrated that it had been. I don’t see your objection as being enough to merit an erratum, or even a return email.
My point was merely to ask the question. To be honest, I was hoping to find out that it was bullshit so I could send the proof back to the guy who sent me the article. FWIW, my original reply to the guy who sent me the article was ‘Sounds like standard CT bullshit to me, but I’ll check it out’…and since I know a lot of folks here are pretty knowledgeable of both Snopes and Wiki I figured I’d ask here first to get the word.
-XT
Here’s an email that erroneously tried to slap the racist tag on Bush. There’s probably more on the site, this is just the first one I found.
Zoom in on the signs in the first photo. In addition to the two screws holding the top sign to the post, you’ll see a screws at each of four corners. The only reason there’d be screws there is to secure two signs back to back. Also, if you look at the bottom left corner of the sign, you’ll see the edge of the other sign peeking below the bottom of the sign facing the camera.
The signs are next to a drive that connects the buildings to the road that’s visible in both pictures. There’s no reason to believe that road is one way, so cars could approach from both directions.
I notice nobody here wants to touch the Pat Boone dick-in-a-box issue either.
What have I done? Help, I’m scared.