snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > We've Got Mail

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 29 September 2009, 07:24 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Yow!

Comment: I think you should do a little editing when you publish letters;
removing obsene language or using something like,
f---ing, instead of the real 4 latter word. A little decorum pls.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 30 September 2009, 04:37 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Tantrum

Comment: As I pulled up your site, to my surprise and dissapointment the
first thing I saw was WRONG BITCH! what kind of website is this. If that
is the things your going to cont. to show on this site I will no longer be
using it.
Young kids use this site with and without their parents to look things up.
There is no need what so ever for filthy language ever!!!! Shame on
you!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 30 September 2009, 05:13 PM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 6,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: As I pulled up your site, to my surprise and dissapointment the
first thing I saw was WRONG BITCH! what kind of website is this. If that
is the things your going to cont. to show on this site I will no longer be
using it.
Young kids use this site with and without their parents to look things up.
There is no need what so ever for filthy language ever!!!! Shame on
you!!!!!
K, bye. Don't let the doorknob hitcha...
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 30 September 2009, 07:08 PM
Dr. Winston O'Boogie's Avatar
Dr. Winston O'Boogie Dr. Winston O'Boogie is offline
 
Join Date: 23 February 2000
Location: Fox Lake, IL
Posts: 5,228
Frying Pan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amigone201 View Post
K, bye. Don't let the doorknob hitcha...
... where the good Lord split 'ya
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 13 December 2009, 02:29 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Tantrum

Comment: I'm a little more than shocked and disappointed that on the Sarah
Palin page (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/palin.asp), without any
warnings, you link to photos of naked women. My 13-yr-old son pointed this
out to me when attempting to verify some information about Ms. Palin and
followed my instructions to check with this site. It would have been fine
if there was a warning, even a pop-up that cautions the visitor they're
leaving the site. But after scouring the page, I found no disclaimers
whatsoever. Let me know when you change your policies for directly linking
off site or at least add disclaimers on each page, seeing so many of us link off of
search results. Until then, I'll just have to find a new resource for my
information. That was offensive and appalling.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 13 December 2009, 05:02 AM
One-Fang's Avatar
One-Fang One-Fang is offline
 
 
Join Date: 02 November 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,610
Default

Y'know, he's 13. I don't think it was anything he hasn't seen yet. Perhaps behind the bleachers with his mates and his mate's dad's dirty mags.

Oh no though, your son isn't one of THOSE. No no, YOUR son is a "good boy". Right.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 13 December 2009, 09:02 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Tantrum

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/chris...ondegreens.asp

Comment: I did not like the swearing of using God's name in vain (1st
Commandment) regarding the misheard lyrics of Christmas Carols.
What part of thou shalt not don't you understand?
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 27 December 2009, 02:56 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Roll eyes

Comment: Please remove my email address, as of today.
I no longer with to received any further snopes data from this web site.
I find the N word to describe black in your Racial Rumors section to be
very offensive and not needed to be printed to make a point.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 30 December 2009, 10:45 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Mouse

Comment: I find the article "Rats All Folks" gross and disgusting, I
question why you would want something like this associated with your
website. Like you said it is "nasty". Giving this kind of garbage any
attention does not lend credibility to your page. I was not searching for
this when it popped up. I had been looking for something about a man who
uses nails to create art. Highly disappointed in this.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 26 February 2010, 10:05 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Yow!

Comment: Are vendors purposely placing the new Sports Illustrated at
check-out for all to see, including our young children? The woman on the
front is half nude. I have heard of the magazine being accessible in
three different locations... hardly a mistake.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 22 May 2010, 05:40 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Icon402

Comment: I have always thought that snopes.com was a great site, and I
have been recommending it for years.

Unfortunately, there is no reason to show someone committing
suicide on your website!

This article does just that:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/interrogate.asp

There is no need to show this. There are no age filters,
which means that any child can view the video.
This type of article is not what this website was all about!

I am sorry, but this is just wrong. If you are trying to get
more people to view your site, maybe you should add porn too,
and again, leave off the age filters!
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 22 May 2010, 05:40 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Icon97

Comment: I've always consulted Snopes when receiving questionable emails
from family and friends -- and I've suggested that they consult it too. But
after checking out a rumor just now and being confronted with an an
obnoxious ad for "permanent birth control" I will not be using Snopes
again nor recommending it to anyone else.

How ironic: just checked the top of the page and now there's an ad for
Baby Orajel. Won't be many babies to use Orajel if we use the permanent
birth control, will there?
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 23 May 2010, 05:11 AM
rockland6674's Avatar
rockland6674 rockland6674 is offline
 
Join Date: 28 December 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,111
Tantrum

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
...But after checking out a rumor just now and being confronted with an an obnoxious ad for "permanent birth control" I will not be using Snopes again nor recommending it to anyone else.
Gee, that's too bad, since snopes stands to lose a lot of $$$ if you take your business elsewhere.

Actually, he won't lose a penny. He'll just lose another whiner. It'll be tough, but I'm sure he'll cope.

- rock "I hope you never breed" land
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 23 May 2010, 05:23 AM
Eddylizard's Avatar
Eddylizard Eddylizard is offline
 
Join Date: 15 June 2006
Location: Tonbridge, Kent, UK
Posts: 17,857
Default

Snopes might lose money through advertising revenue - though whether the loss of our commentator and his friends is significant who knows in the snopes financial model (ETA and it's none of my business to want to know) - depends how many friends the commentator has I guess.

I also guess that another ten, twenty whatever people who don't check the site is another however e-mails that snopes or his team have to read through reporting the same tired nonsense that has been cleared up but has circulated the Earth via mail forwards more often than the entire space shuttle fleet.

Last edited by Eddylizard; 23 May 2010 at 05:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 05 June 2010, 03:58 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Shout

Comment: I appreciate and respect SNOPES as a very informational website, please
respect us, your consumers and fellow citizens, by not advertising any
type of contraception, which is a form of abortion.
I am a prolife person, as I'm sure are many others who check your website
time and again and we value life; to advertise contraceptionespecially an
"in your face" pop-up ad, is not a good thing.
Thank your for your kind attention to this matter.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 05 June 2010, 06:20 AM
KingDavid8 KingDavid8 is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 4,126
Default

If contraception is a form of abortion, then isn't abstinence also a form of abortion?

David
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 05 June 2010, 11:55 AM
Eddylizard's Avatar
Eddylizard Eddylizard is offline
 
Join Date: 15 June 2006
Location: Tonbridge, Kent, UK
Posts: 17,857
Default

Interesting question. I suppose to those that think that way (I don't):

If a spermatazoa has entered the uterus, fused with an ovum but found a hostile environment (which is how the mini pill and IUD's work I guess they could consider it a form of abortion. It was a ball of 46 chromosones all set to be a baby, but mum was using something that meant it could not implant in the uterine wall, so it withered and died.

As for the diaphragm and the sponge and the condom (and that other thing I can't remember the name of) I guess we could say that we prevented the spematazoa reaching the ova, and both halfs of a potential baby died seperately and alone.

In all those cases though spermatazoa had the potential to implant with an ovum but we artificially defeated it. In absinance that potential is neatly avoided. The smermatazoa never entered the woman, no harm, no foul.

Not that I buy into that crap, but just saying there's a way around any commonsense argument.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 06 June 2010, 03:01 AM
One-Fang's Avatar
One-Fang One-Fang is offline
 
 
Join Date: 02 November 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,610
Default

I believe some of the contraceptive pills will operate in what might be termed an abortion method, by neutralising in some way a successfully joined sperm and egg. Not just providing a hostile environment, but actively 'killing' it.

I just can't quite remember what or how, but I think that's what's being referred to here.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 06 June 2010, 03:29 AM
queen of the caramels's Avatar
queen of the caramels queen of the caramels is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Quebec
Posts: 4,578
Royalty

And IUDs have "arms"which capture only fertilized eggs and throws them out of the vigina...


I was told that "fact" on another board...
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 06 June 2010, 05:07 AM
Dasla's Avatar
Dasla Dasla is online now
 
Join Date: 15 April 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by queen of the caramels View Post
And IUDs have "arms"which capture only fertilized eggs and throws them out of the vigina...


I was told that "fact" on another board...

That gives you quite an image....and did the poster explain how the IUDs knew the differences between the egg's.... and in which direction to throw it?...I mean what if it got confused!!!111!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.