Subject: snopes and bartcop

bc,

you are totally wrong in this whole shrub waving at stevie and snopes.com thing.

I haven't seen the tape.  so I realize it's subjective determination, but to ridicule
barbara mickelson because she didn't line up politically, well, it's beneath you my friend.

We disagree on that.
 I did not misquote snopes when he/she said,

"...Was it true? Well, not really."

That was it.
That was the entirety of the rebuttal.

That's NOT the level of proof we're accustomed to from snopes.com
In what land is "Did not!" considered evidence?
 

I still enjoy your page and though I'm not in there every day like I used to be,
I manage to catch two or three issues a week.  thank you.

anyway, this is the kind of bush league stuff I wrote you about before.
first off, one has to question whether or not you even read the snopes piece you are commenting on.

Are you claiming there was more to the story than I reported?
I hope not, because that would be a loser for you.
I printed the rebuttal in total.

THAT was my complaint.

Snopes is known for being the final word on a subject, so saying "...Was it true? Well, not really."
is a major step down in clarifying a rumor that may very well be true.
It's a compliment to snopes that I'm calling this rebuttal "lacking,"
because a more thorough report is what we've all been getting up until now.

she signs most of them barbara (as this story was signed).
unless she is "boy named" barbara, I think her gender is clear.

Koresh as my witness, I thought snopes was a guy.
My dismay at the sloppy rebuttal was not gender based.
I used the "?" because "snopes" isn't gender specific.
 

second, she hardly gladhands shrub, she just refuses to slam him when it's not clear
he was being an idiot.  shrub eats his own feces frequently enough.  we don't need to
fall back on rovesque tactics to make our point there, do we?

I like where you're coming from, but I'm not asking her to "slam shrub."
I've always thought of snopes as being apolitical.
You can call me Karl Rove all you want, but are you ready to die on the hill that
"...Was it true? Well, not really," is good and definitive reporting?

You see that six-word "answer" as the final say on whether or not it really happened?
I'll bet a pound of chocolate that in 745 issues of  bartcop.com
I've never written an argument as weak as "...Was it true? Well, not really."

Snopes is known for evidence, fair play and attribution of her evidence.
How does  "...Was it true? Well, not really," solve anything?
 

finally, her record for being fair and accurate is excellent.  I read through her piece carefully.
while it makes my skin crawl to see anything not critical of shrub, she calls 'em, as they say,
as she sees 'em.  it seemed ambiguous what the idiot king did.  so what.

My best guess is that AFTER I printed that, snopes may have expanded on her "evidence."
Your argument, on its face, is that "...Was it true? Well, not really," is evidence enough.
Are you saying snopes is held is such high esteem that she need not present a case?
That she only needs to say "Didn't happen," and we all leave satisfied?

One of us is certainly playing fast and loose with logic and common sense.
If  "...Was it true? Well, not really." is now considered evidence
than we are in more trouble than even I feared.
 

are you sure you did the right thing here?

You can't be serious.
I realize you've had no chance for rebuttal since this exchange began,
but "...Was it true? Well, not really,"  cannot be considered "definitive evidence."
Again, my "outrage" exists because snopes has always been so concrete with evidence.
She can't "declare" Bush innocent and expect me to accept that.
 

in the end, you have my respect for fighting the good fight.  you're a good a bartcop,
probably better than we deserve.  keep your standards high and your ego humble.

very best regards to you and yours,
ice weasel

In closing, I can only assume we have semantic differences.
I look forward to your reply.
It's not my intention to assault the internet's primary nutty-rumor squelcher,
but she can't wave a wand and say "Didn't happen."

She's gotta give us something better than "...Was it true? Well, not really."
 

Revisit: Ice, because I have a lot of respect for snopes, let me say this:
I just revisted the page, and it seems to be aa LOT more detailed now
than it was the day I wrote my critique.

If you can reach snopes, ask her if there was a time when "...Was it true? Well, not really."
was the only rebuttal she had online.  I know when I post an issue, I catch a glaring error so
checking it at 2:15 might be completely different than checking it at 2:20.

I'm telling you - when I wrote what I wrote, her rebuttal was six words long.
"...Was it true? Well, not really," - THAT was her rebuttal in total.

That doesn't make her bad, I just caught her at 2:15 when 2:30 was her better moment.

In my willingness to be fair, if snopes said "that didn't happen," I'll back down and apologize.
But I saw what I saw, and I was upset with her lack of credibility when her "evidence"
consisted of "...Was it true? Well, not really."

If she says those six words were NEVER posted by themselves one on her site, I'll say the mea culpa.
I'm sure that I'm right, but I'll let it go if snopes says, "No way that happened."

Is that fair?
Can you reach her for an answer?

Last thing:

I mentioned that "snippy" business because snopes printed an excellent and truthful report
on how Al Gore never said  "I invented the Internet, Love Story, Love Canal," etc.

It was so good, I copied and pasted it - not to steal her thunder, but so often a link is good
for 30 days and then it disappears forever. I knew that GOP lie would come up again and again.
so I kept a "forever version" for the children to read in the coming years.

Snopes got all hot and snippy and demanded I take the link down.
I did, because it wasn't mine. I wanted to play fair with the truth lady.

Then she wrote a second time, with much vitriol claiming I wasn't truthful about taking down the link
because the story remained on Perkel's server.  It was a rookie mistake - I took down the link, but I
forgot to erase the htm file on Perkel's server, which made me guilty of the crime of the century.

I didn't feel good about enraging the lady who was defending Gore, but it was a MISTAKE and snopes
was on me like Laura the Unloved on a single mother and I just thought it was all so unnecessary.
Anyone who reads bartcop.com knows I couldn't have written anything that detailed and intelligent,
so I thought her POUNDING me was out of line, but I sheepishly defered because I knew she was right.
 

Maybe I'm not the only one who attacks without thinking, but I'm telling you that the detail
that's currently posted on snopes.com was NOT there when I wrote that story.

I make mistakes - lots of 'em, but I'm not going to accuse somebody, especially an ally,
of farbing out with a six-word excuse if they have a full page written as their rebuttal.

In snopes is as honest as I think she is, she'll tell you there was a time when those six words
were the only rebuttal that was online for a period of time, and she expanded her answer later.

If she says that's not the case - I'll say I was wrong.