Kiss my bias

[snopes]

Comment: Thanks for the info, but I strongly disagree with you concerning Chavez and Sheehan. Sounds like some of your troops are socialist Bush-haters. Bush may not be the most intelligent man around, but he is not an immoral, dishonest criminal like as Clinton.

[Johnny Slick]

I agree with this post except for the part about Bush not being the most intelligent man around.

[snopes]

Comment: the fact that you used cnn as a source of information regarding
barack obama's muslim childhood ties causes me to doubt your reliability.
cnn is a known to be a liberal leaning "news" source. this is comparable
to making a democrat believe information from fox news channel.

[snopes]

this is comparable to making a democrat believe information from fox news channel.

Or, it would be if actually having journalists who investigate stories were comparable to being a mouthpiece for third-hand, unsourced stories from other news outlets.

- snopes

[snopes]

Comment: this is the 4th time I have used your site to respond to an email
that was sent to me. You are definitely politically biased, as is made
clear in your responses to certain articles. Further more, your
explanations do not mean certain events did not take place, as people can
make anything look like what they want it to look like, and your
explanations did not verify what the truth was, one way or the other, just
as you see it. I am disappointed you give facts that support your
obvious political bent. So using Snopes to determine truth is not really
viable. Shame on you for portraying your site as legitimate. You have
no business giving out information on articles that you cannot remain
neutral on.

[claudia]

I notice he doesn't give any examples, or even say in which direction you are supposedly biased.

[rockland6674]

Originally Posted by claudia

I notice he doesn't give any examples, or even say in which direction you are supposedly biased.

snopes leans to either the far-left or the far-right, depending on which nutjob you ask.

- rock "swaying in the breeze" land

[snopes]

Comment: The length you go to exonerate and excuse Bill Cilnton only makes
me suspicious of some validity to the claims of his detractors. Do you
believe enough is enough?

[snopes]

Comment: I have read your website and decided that you guys have to be fat
redneck, republicans and religious idiots. I know you don't care that you
will lose one site visitor but you did. Your obvious racism and slanted
views for the right is obvious in the stories you are posting.

[claudia]

How come the accusations never give examples?

[snopes]

Comment: Your intro to "Risque Business" states: "We engage in sex because
we have a powerful biological urge to do so: it's nature's way of ensuring
that we reproduce." This is absurd, inaccurate, and offensive. Many
people engage in sexual activity that cannot lead to reproduction, such as
gay and lesbian people and women who have passed menopause. According to
your theory, they should not experience any sexual desire at all, or if
they do, they are "unnatural," a freak of nature.

You may personally believe that it is immoral to have sexual relations
with someone unless you are planning to have a baby, but your personal
opinions do not make a "biological urge."

I suggest that you read some of the literature on the varieties of sexual
desires and expressions, such as John D'Emilio's "Intimate Matters: A
History of Sexuality in America," or the journal "Sexualities," prior to
making statements that brand people as "unnatural" simply because their
romantic partners cannot get pregnant.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: I would like to schedule a time to meet with you via telephone
regarding a statement on your website which expresses prejudice against
gay and lesbian persons. I have already emailed you once, but you have
chosen not to respond.

It is likely that the offensive statement was included due to ignorance
rather than actual anti-gay hatred. However, if you expect gay people or
non-homophobic heterosexuals patronize your website, they may conclude
that you promote bigotry, so if you are not, it is important that you
remove or qualify the offending statement.

If you are anti-gay, of course, it is important that you state on the home
page that only heterosexuals are welcome on your site.

Please let me know a good time and date to contact you via telephone.

[snopes]

Yeegads, this is as dumb as claiming that the statement "Hunger is biology's way of prompting us to take in sustenance" is wrong because sometimes people eat for pleasure, and that anyone who says otherwise must harbor a hateful, anti-chef bias.

- snopes

[inkrose115]

Originally Posted by snopes

Yeegads, this is as dumb as claiming that the statement "Hunger is biology's way of prompting us to take in sustenance" is wrong because sometimes people eat for pleasure, and that anyone who says otherwise must harbor a hateful, anti-chef bias.

- snopes

You anti-chef racist!

[Canuckistan]

It is likely that the offensive statement was included due to ignorance rather than actual anti-gay hatred. However, if you expect gay people or non-homophobic heterosexuals patronize your website, they may conclude that you promote bigotry, so if you are not, it is important that you remove or qualify the offending statement.

If you are anti-gay, of course, it is important that you state on the home page that only heterosexuals are welcome on your site.

Now you tell me. Sheesh, snopes, why didn't you put this in the FAQ? Would have saved me so much time.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Now you tell me. Sheesh, snopes, why didn't you put this in the FAQ? Would have saved me so much time.

Just because we're anti-gay doesn't mean you're not welcome here ... as long as you don't tell anybody, of course.

- snopes

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by snopes

Just because we're anti-gay doesn't mean you're not welcome here ... as long as you don't tell anybody, of course.

Done. My secret is safe with me.

[snopes]

Comment: Please Unsubscribe me from your Lousy Site. I got where I half
way believed you, then came your Defense of the Who.. Cindy Sheehan. May
She Rot In He.. for her actions, which have completely destroyed all her
son believed in. You likewise have destroyed any belief I had in you
Supporting the B..ch.

Originally Posted by snopes

...then came your Defense of the Who..

You defended the Who? That is just too much for my generation... and now that I know, I won't get fooled again....

[snopes]

Comment: SNOPES; WHILE I ENJOY CHECKING YOUR SITE FOR ACCURACY, IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT YOU DISCRIMINATE FOR THE LEFT ON MOST OF YOUR SUMMATIONS.
YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT IMPARTIAL. HOW ABOUT KEEPING IT " FAIR AND
BALANCED" AS THEY SAY ON FOX CHANNEL, THE CONSERVATIVE OASIS IN A
LIBERAL DESERT.

[BringTheNoise]

Looky, looky, a paradox!