Fact-Checkers........

[Getting Traded]

Scientist or not has nothing to do with it. I am not annoyed by any message nor do I want it to go away. Whatever that "message" is. I have no problem with people with different ideas and information. I do have a problem with people calling other people names, mocking them constantly, and telling them they are smarter. I have a problem with people claiming everyone else is dumb if they dont believe them and they have 0 evidence of something. I have a problem with people pushing lies and misinformation and claiming other people are just dumb because they actually did some research on it. Then getting upset with people calling them names back.

Its great the once in a blue moon where @babe actually has real sources and information about something but that is extremely rare. Most of the time its just regurgitating talking heads on the radio he just listened to and claiming them as facts and the real info. I listen to the same people. Most of his rants are the same rants I heard on the radio that day from Hannity or similar.

Also I am a scientist. I am an expert in my field and have been published in journals multiple times for my research. That still has nothing to do with this and gives me no more credibility to discuss things on this message board.

Ron, why even tell us how well published you are? It might impress people but it doesn't advance your argument. I have read some of Babe's rants. They can be convoluted, obscure, and condescending, but also at times insightful. So if all you're going to do is attack him and tell us how smart you are, then you're just like the kettle calling someone black. All these personal attacks on this site are discouraging. There was a time on this site back in the early 2000s when things were pretty harmonious.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Scientist or not has nothing to do with it. I am not annoyed by any message nor do I want it to go away. Whatever that "message" is. I have no problem with people with different ideas and information. I do have a problem with people calling other people names, mocking them constantly, and telling them they are smarter. I have a problem with people claiming everyone else is dumb if they dont believe them and they have 0 evidence of something. I have a problem with people pushing lies and misinformation and claiming other people are just dumb because they actually did some research on it. Then getting upset with people calling them names back.

Its great the once in a blue moon where @babe actually has real sources and information about something but that is extremely rare. Most of the time its just regurgitating talking heads on the radio he just listened to and claiming them as facts and the real info. I listen to the same people. Most of his rants are the same rants I heard on the radio that day from Hannity or similar.

Also I am a scientist. I am an expert in my field and have been published in journals multiple times for my research. That still has nothing to do with this and gives me no more credibility to discuss things on this message board.

Sorry, I'm on a rant lately and it's based out of the mistreatment of conservatives. My complaining lately is the same as yours here.

 

[DutchJazzer]

lol people showed being/getting published means nothing!
as a few people made hogwash nonsesnical science papers and got published
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...feminist-text-why-we-hoaxed-journals-terrible

 

[Ron Mexico]

I have to agree with Babe about this. I definitely think that while they do some solid research they tend to agree with "facts" that support their POV. The fact that they won't reveal their source of funding is suggestive of that, and that I think is fact that cannot be disputed. If they are truly unbiased, then they would reveal who funds them.

What is their POV?

They do release their source of funding. You can look it up.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Ron, why even tell us how well published you are? It might impress people but it doesn't advance your argument. I have read some of Babe's rants. They can be convoluted, obscure, and condescending, but also at times insightful. So if all you're going to do is attack him and tell us how smart you are, then you're just like the kettle calling someone black. All these personal attacks on this site are discouraging. There was a time on this site back in the early 2000s when things were pretty harmonious.

I literally did the opposite. I said how pointless it is and does nothing to help me. Someone claimed that neither is a scientist. But being a scientist or not doesn't mean anything in regards to this.

 

[Getting Traded]

What is their POV?

They do release their source of funding. You can look it up.

I'll look it up. I'm trusting what Babe said, but apparently he is wrong, then. However, when I was campaigning for Sanders, I noticed some bias in favor of Clinton, which made me suspicious of their objectivity.

 

[babe]

I'll look it up. I'm trusting what Babe said, but apparently he is wrong, then. However, when I was campaigning for Sanders, I noticed some bias in favor of Clinton, which made me suspicious of their objectivity.

Some of my critics have some valid points.

I think the fact is that we have many contributors who come in here occasionally who do make excellent contributions to threads.... and maybe some few who post a lot of talking point stuff they're just passing along without really being very original..... political compliance monitors, more or less. My responses sometimes are no better.

 

[babe]

So, anyway.....

About Snopes. I am sure I need to study the subject of their objectivity quite a lot, I don't have enough "facts" to make the case yet.

It is a good exercise to do. I will be making some more comments as I find stuff to report.

There is some valid, I think, concern about social media platforms with their magically transforming values about what a "responsible" community should look like. I suspect Facebook and Snopes' joint project has to do with selecting and managing "acceptable" public opinion...… and I think the Chinese are involved in it too. The "Chinese" cultural model may be briefly described as top-down public management with plenty of enforcement officers.

And if that is what Facebook and Snopes are building..... well....we don't count much.

 

[babe]

I'll look it up. I'm trusting what Babe said, but apparently he is wrong, then. However, when I was campaigning for Sanders, I noticed some bias in favor of Clinton, which made me suspicious of their objectivity.

Facebook, paying for contract work on "facts".

One larger donor, with no described interest except appreciation for Snope's work.

A lot of ad revenue.... a stream....courtesy of the big platform managers keeping Snope's links on the first search page. Some would say such courtesy is more than say.... Alex Jones.... or conservative voices of any description, gets from the Big Platforms.

I don't know if the Snopes budget includes buying those promotional spots or paying professionals to keep the Snopes links floating on the first page.

The problem today with tracking political money is that there are many ways to hide the money from eyes that pry. This includes fake personal names and fake business names, and maybe almost a hundred "_______Community Trust" type charity hosts who provide management cover for thousands of little accounts privately owned where anyone can get a tax break for a contribution they know will go to a specific "good cause".

It is somewhat credible that Snopes' failure a while back was related to a divorce going on in the family including disputes about the funding money....

It is still a concern to understand some of political connections and influences....