"I'd like to buy a clue, please."

[snopes]

Comment: the Titanic urban legend relating to the Poseidon Adventure seems
to actually be false. I was on a newspaper staff writing about urban
legends for halloween and wrote that one without fact checking...and later
had to retract the story because many people pointed out the inaccuracy to
the staff. I did some research and was unable find a thing relating to a
silent version of the film. Just thought you would like to know, and if
you can show me that it is true, that would work as well.

[Four Kitties]

Originally Posted by snopes

I did some research and was unable find a thing relating to a
silent version of the film.

I did some reasearch, but said research did not include clicking the Additional Information link on your page. That would have been too easy.

[Bassist]

Originally Posted by snopes

I did some research and was unable find a thing relating to a silent version of the film.

Would someone please point him in the direction of the website that shows clear evidence of things that do not exist?

[Esprise Me]

Hello, operator? Can you please give me the number for 911?

[FloridaGirl]

Originally Posted by snopes

I was on a newspaper staff

And this is the grammar we get?

[snopes]

Comment: get real. Mr. Ed, a zebra? Get your facts straight. Look it up on
google.

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: get real. Mr. Ed, a zebra? Get your facts straight. Look it up on
google.

Isn't this kind of the response you want people to have? Except for clicking on the link (and who clicks every link?), I'd say this guy has essentially the right response to that page.

David

[snopes]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

Isn't this kind of the response you want people to have? Except for clicking on the link (and who clicks every link?), I'd say this guy has essentially the right response to that page.

Well, yes and no. Yes, it's good that he demonstrates at least a basic awareness of contradictory information sources and how to find them. But his apparent non-understanding that our article is a joke leads me to believe he doesn't really grasp the concept of critically evaluating sources; he's just applying the "somebody else said" approach to determining the correct answer.

- snopes

[snopes]

Comment: Article: Mister ED was a zebra.

How dumb do you think people are? Do you really expect me to believe that
a zebra's stripes cannot be seen on a black and white TV, and only show up
on a color TV? No matter the kind of TV, the stripes are still black and
white and WILL show on a black and white TV. They are black and white -
not invisible! Mister Ed was a palomino horse, not a frickin zebra!

[Dropbear]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

Isn't this kind of the response you want people to have? Except for clicking on the link (and who clicks every link?), I'd say this guy has essentially the right response to that page.

David

Except that his idea of "getting the facts straight" involves looking it up on google. Google is not an authoritative source - you might as well say "look it up on Wiki"

Dropbear

[snopes]

Comment: You may want to check your facts on the California flag article.

You mention that Barlett was in kahoots with two others named Bosc and
d'Anjou. These are all Varieties of pears, and it sounds like your
research was a bit off here.

I found another source on the net, at the address below, that has done the
research to disprove this page.

http://itlookslikethis.blogspot.com/...s_archive.html

[One-Fang]

Hehehehe. The sheer amount of time and energy invested in all that research before clicking the link on the actual page is funny. This guy posted this to his blog? I'd be far too embarassed.

Besides, we're supposed to trust in the word of someone who writes "California's short-lived Bear Flag Republic was supposed to feature a pear, rather than a pear"??

[Tantei Kid]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: You may want to check your facts on the California flag article.

You mention that Barlett was in kahoots with two others named Bosc and
d'Anjou. These are all Varieties of pears, and it sounds like your
research was a bit off here.

I found another source on the net, at the address below, that has done the
research to disprove this page.

http://itlookslikethis.blogspot.com/...s_archive.html

Unless the blog altered something besides the update they have bolded, this person is a bigger idiot than most. The blog freaking pointed out the "additional info" link and what it said. How do these people function enough to write an email?

[snopes]

Comment: Mrs/mr Torkelson,

Mr Ed WAS NOT portrayed by a zebra. He was portrayed by a horse. Your
webpage has wrong info.
I saw the 3 sources. Are you saying that Brooks,Earle
Marsh,Nalven,Young,and Bill Burt all too say that Ed was a zebra?

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: Mrs/mr Torkelson,

Mr Ed WAS NOT portrayed by a zebra. He was portrayed by a horse. Your
webpage has wrong info.

Including, apparently, the name of the owners.

[snopes]

Comment: The article on Mr. Ed being a horse or not interested me, HOWEVER
it is false. Mr. Ed was indeed a horse, why? Look at the conformation of
the two animals, a Zebra has faridderenet conformation than a horse, not
to mention the mane and tail. The entire body shape is different and when
a person was standing next to Mr. Ed he was the height of a horse, not a
zebra. Mane and tail extensions can be added, sure, but to where they look
like they are the real thing from that horse? No. I have owned horses
since I was five and competed in horse shows since I was 6, I've been
around zebras aswell, as many of the farms out in Arizona have them to
make Zorses, and I know you can NOT pass a zebra off as a horse. Also, Mr.
Ed was indeed played by a REAL PALOMINO HORSE MALE, I don't recall if it
was a stallion or gelding, but in many shots you can see his "junk". Why
waste all that money to disguise this zebra as a horse instead of BUYING A
DIFFERENT HORSE? It makes no sense. They would have to spend HOURS doing
the mane and tail, paiting the horse, after all, you'd have to paint it to
be palomino, and give it a blaze, and then make it look male. Again, too
pricey. And, when you click to see teh zebra photo in black and white it
just shows you a another Mr. Ed photo, the same as on the page before.
That alone makes it doubtable that this is true. Why not have a black and
white picture of the zebra in teh same pose? Please do your research
harder on this one. I can ever prove what is on your site to be false.
Hard to believe a rumor proving site fell for a rumor. Please get back to
me on this matter. I'd like to see it corrected, thank you.

[SatansHobbit]

Wow...that was like getting nagged by MrsHobbit after a night out with the boys, she doesn't draw breath either.

...but she definitely doesn't say, "thank you" at the end. (unless dripping with sarcasm)

[snopes]

Comment: I'm writing regarding your purposely fake confirmation of rumors
to encourage self fact checking. If you believe that strongly in double
checking, what is the purpose of your website? Snopes.com is put forth as
a site to come to when you hear a rumor. Friend of a friend hear it on the
news? Come to snopes.com and look it up! We probably heard it too, and
looked into it. If I'm going to research it for myself, why the need for
your site at all?

The "common sense should tell you Mr. Ed wasn't a zebra" argument is poor
at best. Not only had I heard the rumor before, making your site the
SECOND place I read it, and therefore where I was FACT CHECKING IT (as I
had, until recently, trusted you), but many things in our everyday lives
defy common sense. Is it inherently logical that you could pick up a
plastic cube and, after pressing a few buttons, speak with someone 6,000
miles away? No, it actually defies everything that naturally is true. But
we've all been taught that phones work (and have later experienced it) so
we believe it to be true. The same goes for cloning. I can't tell you how
you could strip the genetic material out of a cell and recreate another
being in the shell, but people tell me you can. And I believe them. Should
I not? Should I only believe that which I can observe myself? That would
remove all tradition of learning we have built up in the last five hundred
years since the dark ages. Simply because I can not tell you why a black
and white zebra would not appear that way on black and white tv doesn't
mean it isn't possible. It could only mean I don't understand how
television functions as a technology.

Besides, what makes a better story than something that is difficult to
believe? "Baby falls 7 stories and survives," "man lives 8 days in desert
with no water." These are all the types of stories we hear on the news
every night. They grab our attention. They go against our common sense.
And yet they are, 99%+ of the time, completely true. Our lives are full of
extraordinary stories.

Quite honestly, I was disappointed in the whole section of intentional
lies. And to point to mistakes made in earnest on occasion in the
mainstream media to justify your deliberate misinformation is not only
rude but condescending. The whole explanation piece had a condescending
tone, frankly. I didn't appreciate it.


If you want people to come to you as a source for information, fine. If
you want people to fact check themselves, and apparently not be able to
rely on you for one possible source in their fact checking, then your
website is useless. Stop purposely spouting misinformation and free up the
internet for people who actually want to use it.

[One-Fang]

I know I'm gonna get flamed for it, but I agree. I wouldn't rant it quite this way, but I thought it wasn't a very nice thing to do.

Yes, we should all check the sources you use and confirm your research ourselves. But aren't we all too lazy? The reason I come to Snopes to check out legends is because I have, through checking a few stories and links, found them to be a reliable source of information. Must I mistrust Snopes and check the resources every single time? No, like most people, I use a few instances to verify a source's reliability to me, may re-verify it a few times in the future, but generally accept what is said once it's established this is a reliable source.

It's like a bakery throwing in the odd poisoned batch, clearly labelled on the packaging, because we should be checking the ingredients ourselves every time.

[MidgardDragon]

I can see both sides of the point, but I think that the logical compromise is to make the falsity of the page more obvious, perhaps within the page itself rather than a link. That may sound like defeating the purpose, but if the purpose is to make people fact check sources, then a link back to snopes admitting the lie isn't really accomplishing that either.

I think the people emailing complaining are still out of line, though. There's no point in getting upset over it.