I've used them for a couple of years and have found their references and justification well founded.

If everyone would fact-check with Snopes before they forwarded e-mail, the e-mail Internet traffic would be reduced significantly.

DK

I think its kind of reading wikipedia.

So what part of the Snopes story do you know for a fact isn't true?

Conservatives call them liberal because they tell the truth about conservatives. But they tell the truth about liberals, too. Lots of dirt on Bill Clinton, etc.

Snopes doesn't just answer questions - they cite sources and list references. Looks good to me.

I was reading an article on Snopes about Kenned

:)

J

?

Y?

Y not?

Ron

Snopes is two Canadians in California financed by liberals to deceive the folks dumb enough to believe them. They have a laptop and lie just as much as the rest of them. They simply remove material from their site when they are busted ... but believe me ..They have been found out many times.

It does seem that Snopes have several doubters, far more in fact than I originally thought.

So, you're suggesting that it actually DID happen, despite the fact that the Carson people have denied that Arnold Palmer's wife was ever on the show, and the story itself dates back to Sam Sneed?

During this last political cycle I have seen a lot of fact checkers slanting heavy bias. For example, a twitter account would have a screen shot being posted. The fact checkers would call it fake news. Why? Because they have no evidence. How is that it a screen shot. Oh, because they didn't have it archived on their news site. But what's the chances of them archiving every Twitter message. None. So they pick and choose what is real or fake. Snopes is pretty left wing too. I use to goto snopes when it was new. Haven't purposely been there for years.

I find relying on my own brain from previous events to be the best trusted source.

While no website is perfect, I find that snopes is generally on the money.

Admiring the credibility of "academics" is historically questionable, if you just look at some of the past experience of "The Amazing Randi" (RIP Randi) and Banachek and some other excellent ",psychic investigators"!

If you read the whole article at Snopes you find they list a lot of places it could have happened prior as well. They give different scenarios of how it could have happened on Carson. At the end of the article they state that it more than likely did not happen and we may never know. They do not say it did not happen on Carson, just unlikely and they give good reason why in the article itself. I think this is pretty accurate and fair reporting and not biased in this case at all.

"Since nearly all the kinescopes, videotapes, and films of the Tonight Show (both the Steve Allen and Johnny Carson versions) made prior to 1972 were subsequently destroyed, and much of what was broadcast live on television in the 1950s was either never recorded or similarly destroyed afterwards, whether this humorous faux pas ever played out in real life is unlikely to be definitively proved or disproved. But, as with many tales of this nature, the yarn was likely once just a colorful joke until someone once decided to spice it up by presenting it as a true story. For maximum effect and embarrassment, the set-up of the gag requires that the inadvertently-uttered punchline be witnessed by an audience, so setting the anecdote within the framework of a television interview nicely fit the bill."