said by goalieskates: said by Ian: said by goalieskates:
What she said. Snopes has its uses, but there are times it misses badly.
On this occasion their analysis appears to be spot on...I've heard this claimed other times, and when challenged, no good example has been forthcoming.
Probably because your "challenge" is unreasonable and rigged. It's an old technique - demand "proof" chop chop, drop what you're doing and cite it now and then we can all argue some more. It's sophistry.
Snopes is not an article of faith. If you want to turn it into one, that's your problem. Snopes is a service run by humans, and sometimes humans get things wrong. Like I said earlier, we still have to use common sense and personal observation, not just put our faith on autopilot.
If you're going to make the statement "but there are times it misses badly. " I hardly think it's unreasonable to ask for an example. A single example. When you made the statement, you implied that you knew of multiple times.
Is snopes.com perfect? Probably not. But in the case of researching one of these forwarded e-mails, they do a pretty good job.--
Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency. David Wong