I have always understood that Snopes is THE trustworthy site. I have read articles in reputable publications describing how Snopes investigates & debunks. Here is what Wikipedia says about Snopes.

I would question why the writer of the email you received is badmouthing & trying to discredit them.

Here is a link that might be useful: Snpes.com

Lol! You'll have to keep an eye out on Snopes to see if it's true or false;-)

How funny. You want to check an email trashing Snopes at Snopes. I doubt if Snopes is going to reference it with a "TRUE". LOL. Delete the email. It's hogwash.

You might want to send it to Snopes, since the people in charge there love hearing these things.

There was an email going around a year or so ago. Is this it?

Here is a link that might be useful: Snopes--false information?

It was quite long, and very conservative-oriented, so I just automatically took it with a grain of salt,but thought I should check with everyone here.....my source of all things questioned.

OK, I thought I would post the email here....I'm not being personally political.
.........................................................
Snopes--Eye Opener

For the past few years www. snopes. com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes. com.

Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity with many believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?

The reason for the questions - or skepticism - is a result of snopes. com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issues when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.

A few months ago, when State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelsons claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes. com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers ? and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes. com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes. com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose driven agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes. com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Remember, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False...... Then they gave their Liberal slant....!!! I have suspected some problems with Snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity, they do an immediate full left rudder. www. truthorfiction. com is a far a better source for verification, in my opinion.

This couple is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not... trust Snopes. com ever for anything that is remotely political! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore. So goes modern journalism. There are cropping up numerous sites and blogs that openly challenging Snopes's findings, opinions, and outright claims.

A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about Snopes a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. Anyway So you might consider thinking twice before relying on Snopes. com for fact checking and so give your friends the courtesy of tipping them off to Snopes? political slant.

Many people still think Snopes. com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that... Snopes is a hoax in itself.

phyllis, I got that email over a year ago, but it looks like some things have been added. I guess it is still circulating.

Anyhow, there is a website called truthorfiction.org that has a more conservative spin than snopes and even it says the above email debunking snopes.com is bogus. This website is run by Rich Buhler, who is a conservative spokesperson on national television and radio, and is also an ordained minister.

Here is a link that might be useful: Here is what truthorfiction.org said about the email

Well, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, so it as a source has actually less validity than Snopes, because wikis can be and usually are anonymous.

Bah! More political spin!

Hi Phyllis. Remember what unsolicited commercial email is called? Rhymes with the spiced pork product from Austin, MN. I assume this was forwarded to you from some friend of yours someone you know?

There's several good sites for debunking out there. Another is urbanlegends and I'd have to check the addresses on the others. The last eight years have seen the internet used politically and spam by political clones to support the unsupportable.

You were wise, as always, to question it. Anything that comes to you via email gets questioned by me and has to prove itself first. I don't give spammers the benefit of the doubt.

Now sadly, I've lost my email from a Nigerian General who's going to make me rich. Argh! Oh woe is me.

Hey, Cynic, I can put you in touch with someone in the military in Iraq. He has millions of Saddam Hussein's fortune stashed away, and it's ours for something or other.

By the way, Urban Legends are Snopes.com.

Remember, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. I agree

Just my personal feeling, but when I see emails like this with the Random meaningless Capitalization in the middle Of sentences, I suspect immediately they are false. Idiots.

This one is a crock. I saw it several years ago, although is seems to have been embellished since then.

A little research found this article on FactCheck.org, which explains the whole thing.

Here is a link that might be useful: Factcheck.org on the email and Snopes

"A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about Snopes a few months ago."

Hhahaha. Welcome to the 21st century.

"Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it."

Ah yes, aggregate contributions from 11 year olds, housewives, prisoners with computers, college pranksters........ Wikipedia got to the bottom of things. It's that good.

(I'm not saying there are no legitimate contributors but I've seen a lot of insane ramblings on Wiki. Fortunately they get flagged and pulled hopefully before anyone falls for them. Wikipedia is a good starting point or shortcut when doing research.)

Thank you all for your reassuring,and informative, postings.

Phyllis

I usually use truthorfiction.com, but have never heard anything bad about snopes. I guess we have to use common sense and take everything with a grain of salt.

Most of the stuff on Snopes can be figured out by the average person if the average person asks themselves "Does this make sense??". If the answer is "No" then the story is simply not true. Simple.

When it comes to details in the true stories, sometimes the Snopes version is different than other legitimate sources and both stories make sense. So it can be a tough call to figure out the truth if one is a stickler for actual facts.

For instance, here is the Snopes version of the "Chip Monk" story in this link:

http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/chipmonk.asp

Here is a news story indicating that the real Las Vegas "Chip Monk" of tour guild lore is just a layperson who works at a church and somehow acquired the moniker over the years when frequently cashing in chips at the casinos. It looks like they obviously went through a lot of investigative research and interviews for the story so I tend to believe it is not a hoax. I mean somebody has to cash in all those chips they receive in the collection plates. So it would seem a safe bet that this is the guy who garnered the nickname. Or maybe there are many guys over the year who got tagged with the name.

He says in the interview: "Years ago, we used to get a lot more chips. Now, we're getting slot receipts, and they're only good for a limited time."

Somehow "The Receipt Monk" just doesn't have the same ring.

http://www.viewnews.com/2008/VIEW-Feb-05-Tue-2008/Henderson/19446891.html

So you see, the details of the story are slightly different in the Snopes version but is it enough to call a bet on?

Here is a link that might be useful: The Chip Monk

Get a head start reading up on urban legends by sneaking a peak at Urban legends: 666 absolutely true stories that happened to a friend-- of a ... By Thomas J. Craughwell

There are many books devoted to collecting these silly stories that are retold over and over and even handed down generations. for some reason my brother has purchased a lot of books devoted to these collected stories. I don't know why but I guess he finds them interesting reading.

Read bok excerpts here:

Here is a link that might be useful: Head Start.

I cannot understand for the life of me why anyone at all would refer to Wikipedia as an actual reference for definition or fact like they would, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's ridiculous. Does the general population understand that this is not fact checked or even so often fact based material? I dont understand it's purpose.

From Snopes FAQ page

Q: Who creates the material for this site?

A: With very few exceptions, all of the material on this site is prepared by the same people who operate this site, Barbara and David Mikkelson.

Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate?

A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.

Here is a link that might be useful: Snopes FAQ page

Wikipedia is a handy web site full of interesting information. But it's not always accurate and please don't use it as your only resource. One day my son happened to look up his college and was amused to find out that he was listed as a distinguished alum - well I think he's distinguished because he's my son. However he certainly shouldn't be included with Philip Roth (novelist), Leslie Moonves (President of CBS) or the actor Edward Herrmann. One of his friends had inserted his name in the list as a joke.

The Mikkelsons have never hid their identity as the researches behind Snopes. Wikipedia didn't have to do any digging to find that out.