tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post6482105550924531252..comments2023-12-19T09:40:12.020-08:00Comments on The Emoluments of Mars: Robert Morningstar's fake-everything pageexpathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-77446317817947695562018-07-18T12:51:01.686-07:002018-07-18T12:51:01.686-07:00"What specific articles Patrick, have you tak..."What specific articles Patrick, have you taken issue with?"<br /><br /><a href="https://www.wnd.com/2018/07/limbaugh-left-in-panic-acting-like-recent-escapees-from-asylums/#flkj6mu6cqme9V8v.01" rel="nofollow">This one</a>.James Concannonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-63228626805917552892018-07-15T11:12:52.866-07:002018-07-15T11:12:52.866-07:00OBM: Yes, that's exactly it.
I'm chiming ...OBM: Yes, that's exactly it.<br /><br />I'm chiming in here to comment on the adjective "self-appointed" as applied to snopes. I don't see how an internet fact checker can be appointed by anyone else—at least, I think if some high mucky-muck appointed one we would trust it even less.expathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369924104634464934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-82307944258471099922018-07-15T02:52:27.215-07:002018-07-15T02:52:27.215-07:00Sounds exactly like the tactic of a certain youtub...Sounds exactly like the tactic of a certain youtube moonhoax nut whose first response to criticism seems to be to accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a transvestite and/or paedophile. If you can't discredit your opponents by proving them wrong, then I guess all you have left is to accuse them of something vile and hope the mud will stick.OneBigMonkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05848865750227452987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-51921460897003691102018-07-13T10:32:11.917-07:002018-07-13T10:32:11.917-07:00"A picture of a couch potato with a lap top....."A picture of a couch potato with a lap top..."<br />SNEER #7<br /><br />The Forbes article is definitely interesting. Nothing on Soros, however.James Concannonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-13190897103317580812018-07-13T06:18:49.056-07:002018-07-13T06:18:49.056-07:00and James
you may find the following article of &...and James<br /><br />you may find the following article of "some" interest<br /><br />https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#43d7034d227f<br /><br />Adrian<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-76940990528321540542018-07-13T00:21:57.544-07:002018-07-13T00:21:57.544-07:00I rest my case, sorry
A picture of a couch potat...I rest my case, sorry<br /><br />A picture of a couch potato with a lap top ventilating an opinion in the new york times? Come on please.<br />Last line of defense being ? The theme remains the same even in this article...we need this self appointed fact checkers and if there is any form of critique...well..then they play the dominant victim card. <br /><br />I do not see how an article in the new york times such as the one you referenced is in anyway a form of investigative research?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-36650686125661214422018-07-12T06:47:45.088-07:002018-07-12T06:47:45.088-07:00Did as you asked. Here's the answer—there are ...Did as you asked. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/technology/for-fact-checking-website-snopes-a-bigger-role-brings-more-attacks.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">Here's the answer</a>—there are no such ties.James Concannonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-76331594204425559342018-07-12T02:18:27.010-07:002018-07-12T02:18:27.010-07:00@ James
"....because he doesn't think hi...@ James<br /><br />"....because he doesn't think his fake news ought to be fact-checked at all."<br /><br />I am totally in agreement with you on such an assessment! No disagreement whatsoever on the fact that nowadays it is a very intelligent thing to do, as you obviously propose, to check everything. I believe that the Mikkelson divorce is relevant to some extent in the way they "played" it out in relation to their Snopes empire [ pun intended ] <br /><br />But back to the relevant issue at hand: Like Wikipedia, Snopes et al they can not be trusted as being objective institutes when it comes to fact and truth. The real question therefore should actually be....the why question? For example...why is "the objective and so called truthful" Wikipedia worldwide for instance run on a daily base by just a handful administrators? Why and what is their motive for doing so? Why do they always seem to target certain issues in order to chance them within minutes? The same goes for Snopes in a way. Why and what are their motives for doing so? Surely you will agree that they, like the handful of administrators, cannot possible in their right mind think that the world needs them for controlling and upholding the truth? Surely you and I and lots of other people are more then intelligent enough to make up their own mind backed up with investigative research?<br /><br />So yes motive, motive and motive. The above questions are somewhat rhetorical of course :-) and by no means meant to start smoking of an argument. However...I do think the world has been caught up in some sort of media social engineering scheme...wherein media is used a tool to direct, lead, obfuscate and manipulate. Which of course brought about the so called fact checkers. And there you have it....To what extend are or aren't they a part of this recognizable scheme.<br /><br />So if you are willing to drive this point home so to speak.....Give yourself a few good laughs and investigate the financial ties between Snopes and Soros. Just a funny idea for a little back on the envelope research :-)<br /><br />Thanks for your reaction<br /><br />Adrian Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-42266557085249933502018-07-11T06:57:39.254-07:002018-07-11T06:57:39.254-07:00Adrian: Thanks for the comments. I don't know ...Adrian: Thanks for the comments. I don't know enough to assess Snopes' record or accuracy. I do know that the Mikkelson divorce is totally irrelevant to any such assessment.<br /><br />I'm just glad that someone is doing this work, and I do sometimes follow their leads to check for myself. You could do that, too, if you suspect that Snopes is misleading.<br /><br />I re-iterate my main point: Robert Morningstar yells "Snopes is for dopes" because he doesn't think his fake news ought to be fact-checked at all.James Concannonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-33675449265702712542018-07-11T01:43:47.672-07:002018-07-11T01:43:47.672-07:00@ James Concannon
I come to the conclusion that ...@ James Concannon <br /><br />I come to the conclusion that you seem to be unable to see the difference between a sneer and factual representation. As I said in my previous comment...yes...some are a bit sarcastic [intended on the basis for using something like Snopes for referencing "facts"] Therefore <br />number 1 - The Mikkelson couple IS Snopes / sarcastically pointing out A: how a husband and wife became the fact checkers on this planet?? and B: that there is no such thing as a huge international organization going by the name Snopes...objectively guiding the rest of the world to tell truth from fairytales.<br /><br />number 2 - good point but none the less intended sarcasm<br /><br />number 3 - If one calls oneself a CEO of an organization that consists of two people, namely your own wife...one is dramatically overstating ones position. It gives the dramatic air of a huge organization which again it never was.<br /><br />number 4 - they were in a legal and dare one say also a dramatic divorce battle. So what is the problem using plain English on this one<br /><br />number 5&6 - In reference to number 4 / you really should read some of the transcripts of the aforementioned legal divorce battle. The accusations were really made.<br /><br />So...what is the problem ? It seems to me you are not really keen on real fact checking albeit with some sarcasm?<br /><br />Adrian<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-1680080619749626032018-07-10T06:58:29.850-07:002018-07-10T06:58:29.850-07:00Adrian:
"Husband and wife Mikkelson as a ref...Adrian:<br /><br />"Husband and wife Mikkelson as a reference hiding behind this fancy name Snopes??"<br />SNEER 1<br /><br />"Micky Mouse and Snoop Dog?"<br />SNEER 2<br /><br />"He calls himself CEO [ must be something big then right ]"<br />SNEER 3<br /><br />"could not keep his wife"<br />SNEER 4<br /><br />"was accused of fraud, lies, conspiracy and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses."<br />SNEERS 5&6James Concannonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-35380329363777202982018-07-10T04:32:21.273-07:002018-07-10T04:32:21.273-07:00@ James Concannon
"Adrian: That just looks ...@ James Concannon <br /><br />"Adrian: That just looks like random sneering to me. Same as "snopes is for dopes". Personally, I'm glad somebody is fact-checking fiction-factories like Pamela Geller."<br /><br />First of all: there is no random sneering in it. Maybe you should read it again. It is based on facts...and I agree...with a certain odeur of sarcasm..I'll grant you that much. <br /><br />So, please explain then on what grounds your "...looks like random sneering to me" conclusion is based upon? Nobody in his or her right mind can say this or that is true because he or she fact-checked it on Snopes.com<br /><br />The site is/was nothing more then a kitchen table chit chat old wives tale organization run by a happy couple called Mikkelson. And this not so happy anymore couple made it appear like something big, huge, important and above and beyond all the judge, jury and executioner on all things concerning fact and fiction. Everyone in his or her right mind knows that Snopes really is for dopes if on uses such a source for fact-checking without doing proper investigative work for yourself. It is somewhat like saying...I know its the truth because Wikipedia said so. Everyone knows or should know that this so called global information network is constantly being bamboozled by just a handful [yes, really just a handful] of administrators who constantly contort content in a way they deem fit. <br /><br />So no...there is no justification to take these so called "fact-checkers" on face value just because they claim to be the upholders and defenders of the truth.<br /><br />So...back to you then..please explain then on what grounds your "...looks like random sneering to me" conclusion is based upon? Looking forward to it.<br /><br />Adrian<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-57343976558107953022018-07-09T21:22:14.775-07:002018-07-09T21:22:14.775-07:00Have these guys ever heard of "innocent until...Have these guys ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?!<br /><br />Wait, what am I saying? I'm talking about people who, evidently, hate freedom!Adellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01524004612951314715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-73516358383440097152018-07-09T07:55:25.130-07:002018-07-09T07:55:25.130-07:00Adrian: That just looks like random sneering to me...Adrian: That just looks like random sneering to me. Same as "snopes is for dopes". Personally, I'm glad somebody is fact-checking fiction-factories like Pamela Geller.James Concannonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-11789061229871129802018-07-09T06:32:08.624-07:002018-07-09T06:32:08.624-07:00David and Barbara Mikkelson a.k.a Snopes.com is th...David and Barbara Mikkelson a.k.a Snopes.com is the be and end all institute if one is in need for the truth? Are you having a laugh?? Husband and wife Mikkelson as a reference hiding behind this fancy name Snopes?? Micky Mouse and Snoop Dog?<br /><br />He calls himself CEO [ must be something big then right ] could not keep his wife and was accused of fraud, lies, conspiracy and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses. <br /><br />Wauw!...One has to wonder Expat...and this is a serious question...Is this one a one off so to speak..a slip of the pen...or is your investigative instinct somewhat slipping? Using Snopes as a reference is like saying Santa Claus is a real person and living as a climate migrant on the Bahamas because Al Gore told us that the North Pole has melted away.<br /><br />Seriously<br /><br />AdrianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051630750074978974.post-38121434807427055462018-07-08T16:15:34.664-07:002018-07-08T16:15:34.664-07:00I used to Spam George Moory incessantly with artic...I used to Spam George Moory incessantly with articles from World Net Daily (wnd.com) until he finally started reading news from that sight on air. Eventually, he got guest from that site, such as Jeri Corsi.<br /><br />What specific articles Patrick, have you taken issue with?THE Orbs Whipererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08651754060614417385noreply@blogger.com