On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 17:02, Roger Hicks<pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 16:52, comex<com...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Roger Hicks<pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I hardly consider snopes.com an objective source, >> >> With all due respect, did you actually read the snopes article and the >> sources it cites? >> > I have read snopes article on the subject in the past, investigated > their sources (the few they had at the time), and found the whole > thing to be rather biased and poorly backed. However, I must admit I > didn't click the snopes link in ehird's message. Now that I've > followed it I see it has been significantly updated and references > many more sources than previously. I'll give it another read-through > and check out what they have to say. > Hmm...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764 Disclaimers: 1. I haven't looked into this issue any further since it was discussed here (including re-reading the snopes article) 2. I recognize that the news source for the above article is right-wing and likely biased as such 3. I do not claim to believe the article to be 100% true, like anything else it needs verified. I just thought it was interesting given the recent conversation. 4. I'm not trying to start a flame-war....apologies for the off-topic post. BobTHJ
