Colorado dope dispensaries preparing to accept food stamps

[AMonger]

I don't seem to be able to provide those examples because it was well over 10 years ago. I didn't bother saving them because I didn't believe anyone to the right of Michael Moore could deny the obvious bias in Snopes articles. I'm sure you would have done it different.
The remainder of your reply is foolishness.

 

[RLENT]

I don't seem to be able to provide those examples because it was well over 10 years ago. I didn't bother saving them because I didn't believe anyone to the right of Michael Moore could deny the obvious bias in Snopes articles. I'm sure you would have done it different.

It seems to me that one could recall what those particular issues or matters were and then simply search to find them. I would think that discovering this "obvious bias" would have left quite an impression ... in fact, it seems that it did.

If the bias is so obvious it ought to be easy to provide examples ...

Instead, you are spending a significant amount of time and effort to defend your comments and avoid doing so ...

I'd say that in and of itself might be quite telling.

The remainder of your reply is foolishness.

If there's one thing that earns my complete scorn and utter contempt, it is when someone - who, when they are called out - refuses then to address the substance of an issue and refuses defend and/or back up their positions ...

People who do the above and are arrogantly dismissive while doing so earn a special place in rlent ****

 

[OntarioVanMan]

It seems to me that one could recall what those particular issues or matters were and then simply search to find them. I would think that discovering this "obvious bias" would have left quite an impression ... in fact, it seems that it did.

If the bias is so obvious it ought to be easy to provide examples ...

Instead, you are spending a significant amount of time and effort to defend your comments and avoid doing so ...

I'd say that in and of itself might be quite telling.


If there's one thing that earns my complete scorn and utter contempt, it is when someone - who, when they are called out - refuses then to address the substance of an issue and refuses defend and/or back up their positions ...

People who do the above and are arrogantly dismissive while doing so earn a special place in rlent ****

You are wasting your time.....LOL.....

 

[RLENT]

You are wasting your time.....LOL.....

That would only be true if my only intent was to actually elicit an answer of the type I am claiming to seek ...

I am quite happy with a reply that is responsive ... or one that isn't ...

It works either way.

#seethebigpicture

 

[OntarioVanMan]

That would only be true if my only intent was to actually elicit an answer of the type I am claiming to seek ...

I am quite happy with a reply that is responsive ... or one that isn't ...

It works either way.

#seethebigpicture

I am right...you are wrong....have nothing to prove because I KNOW i am right....LOL

 

[RLENT]

I am right...you are wrong....have nothing to prove because I KNOW i am right....LOL

... ...

 

[AMonger]

It seems to me that one could recall what those particular issues or matters were and then simply search to find them. I would think that discovering this "obvious bias" would have left quite an impression ... in fact, it seems that it did.

If the bias is so obvious it ought to be easy to provide examples ...

Over 10 years ago? Over something read on the net? Riiiiight.

Instead, you are spending a significant amount of time and effort to defend your comments and avoid doing so ...

I'd say that in and of itself might be quite telling.

I was thinking the same about you, wondering what your motivation is in defending Snopes's honor. I was thinking how much effort you're expending for it and why their honor is worth it.

If there's one thing that earns my complete scorn and utter contempt, it is when someone - who, when they are called out - refuses then to address the substance of an issue and refuses defend and/or back up their positions ...

People who do the above and are arrogantly dismissive while doing so earn a special place in rlent ****

I'll just have to live with it, I guess.

 

[muttly]

#theymusthavehamasconnections.

 

[RLENT]

Over 10 years ago? Over something read on the net? Riiiiight.

... Alzheimer's ?

Seriously - it created such an impression on you I can hardly imagine that you have no inkling whatsoever as to what it related to or was about ...

Moreover, it seems that you have an conclusory opinion that you no longer have any specific data or evidence to support ... and it seems that you are now allowing that conclusory opinion - for which you can't recall the basis - to prevent you from making observations at the present time.

It seems to me that being unaware of what it was specifically that caused one to hold a particular opinion/conclusion is somewhat less than optimum.

I was thinking the same about you, wondering what your motivation is in defending Snopes's honor. I was thinking how much effort you're expending for it and why their honor is worth it.

It's really largely a matter of what's true and what isn't, rather than one of snopes honor ...

You're making a claim that I just don't see - and is actually contradictory to my own observations - so I'm asking for the evidence ... pretty simple really: convince me ...

I'll just have to live with it, I guess.

Well then: ... enjoy any of my tender mercies that come your way ...

 

[AMonger]

Seriously - it created such an impression on you I can hardly imagine that you have no inkling whatsoever as to what it related to or was about ...

Moreover, it seems that you have an conclusory opinion that you no longer have any specific data or evidence to support ... and it seems that you are now allowing that conclusory opinion - for which you can't recall the basis - to prevent you from making observations at the present time.

...

You're making a claim that I just don't see - and is actually contradictory to my own observations - so I'm asking for the evidence ... pretty simple really: convince me ...

Let's apply this the other way...
Someone purporting to act as a journalist, if not an actual journalist, has a limited supply of credibility. They're hanging it out there with their shingle to back up their claims. Once they **** it away, it's hard to regain. Even after 10-15 years, the onus is on them to demonstrate they've repented.
I read several articles by Snopes years ago, a handful of which displayed clear political bias. Now, if they'd like to clear up the matter, announce that in the past their articles contained leftist bias and that they would ensure that it didn't happen any more, fine. Short of that, no time frame--10 years or 100-- erases the greasy spot where their credibility once lay.

 

[RLENT]

#theymusthavehamasconnections.

#khamasbookofthemonthclubistakingovertheworld

 

[layoutshooter]

This thread is so far off track it is unreal. It is serving little purpose now.

 

[RLENT]

Let's apply this the other way...

Mmmm ... okay ... soooo ... you just wanna do another needless deflection ... is that the deal ?

Why don't we just stick to the original issue instead m'kay ?

Someone purporting to act as a journalist, if not an actual journalist, has a limited supply of credibility. They're hanging it out there with their shingle to back up their claims. Once they **** it away, it's hard to regain. Even after 10-15 years, the onus is on them to demonstrate they've repented.

ROTFLMAO ... what a hoot !

Have you seriously considered doing standup comedy ?

If not, you should.

Total logical fallacy: Argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum

A restatement of your allegation to support or prove the original allegation is ... ahhh ... re-tard-ed ...

Nice move Ace !

Suggestion for new improved screen name: 'tardMonger

I read several articles by Snopes years ago, a handful of which displayed clear political bias.

... CLEAR political bias ?

Seems like - despite an overwhelming degree of certainty on your part - that the clarity has gotten considerably more fuzzy and ephemeral over time ... which is utterly odd, given that these articles made such profound impact on you ...

Now, if they'd like to clear up the matter, announce that in the past their articles contained leftist bias and that they would ensure that it didn't happen any more, fine. Short of that, no time frame--10 years or 100-- erases the greasy spot where their credibility once lay.

Oh ... I see ... you just wanna do this again:

Total logical fallacy: Argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum

Are you now going for an even more improved new screen name: 'tardMonger²

Excellent !

Your serve Billie Jean ...

 

[RLENT]

This thread is so far off track it is unreal. It is serving little purpose now.

Yes ... you might want to suggest to the OP that he get back on track and deal with the resultant issue that arose from his original post.

 

[layoutshooter]

Blount showed some class. A fine example.

 

[RLENT]

Blount showed some class. A fine example.

Good job there on getting 'er back on track Cap'n ...

 

[AMonger]

Mmmm ... okay ... soooo ... you just wanna do another needless deflection ... is that the deal ?

Why don't we just stick to the original issue instead m'kay ?

That's precisely what I'm doing. I stated that I don't trust your reply to my OP because your source that you used is unreliable.

A restatement of your allegation to support or prove the original allegation

I don't seek to prove or disprove anything. I asked you to provide another source. You either do or you don't. Apparently Snopes meets your standards. Your standards are yours and you're welcome to them. I didn't seek to change them. You and Turtle demanded I justify my standard.

Suggestion for new improved screen name: 'tardMonger

Please cease your attacks.

... CLEAR political bias ?

Seems like - despite an overwhelming degree of certainty on your part - that the clarity has gotten considerably more fuzzy and ephemeral over time ... which is utterly odd, given that these articles made such profound impact on you ...

I read what I read and observed the bias I observed. Unless they publicly change their ways, then I have the facts. I don't know why you have a problem with that.

Total logical fallacy: Argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum

You're the one going for ad nauseam. Had I said I don't trust Snopes, and at that point or after an explanation, you'd have accepted that, even if you didn't agree, we wouldn't have discussed it ad nauseam.

 

[RLENT]

That's precisely what I'm doing. I stated that I don't trust your reply to my OP because your source that you used is unreliable.

Did you bother to even look at the Snopes article and check it out ... or did you just see it was from Snopes and dismiss it out of hand ?

Snopes cites the original source of the article as National Report.

Colorado Pot Shop Accepting Food Stamps - Taxpayer Funded Marijuana for Welfare Recipients - National Report | National Report

Here's the disclaimer from National Report's website:

Disclaimer

*DISCLAIMER: National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental . The views expressed by writers on this site are theirs alone and are not reflective of the fine journalistic and editorial integrity of National Report. Advice given is NOT to be construed as professional. If you are in need of professional help (and you may be if you are on this page), please consult a professional. National Report is intended for a mature audience and not for children under the age of 18.

Disclaimer - National Report | National Report

Now ... if that's not enough try these:

7NEWS - Satire news site claims federal agents raided a medical marijuana shop without a warrant - Local Story

(Note: Read the entire story linked immediately above, as the article headline/link doesn't reference the other spoof story but the article itself does)

Food Stamps For Marijuana? Right Wing News Fell For Elaborate Hoax : Political Blind Spot

Now ... please observe and acknowledge who was actually correct (Snopes - thank you very much)

And then observe how gullible the (right) wing-nut masses were at gobbling this up and spewing it - in a projectile manner - out all over the internet ...

I don't seek to prove or disprove anything.

LOL ... no kidding ?

But don't worry ... you already have ...

I asked you to provide another source. You either do or you don't.

Done.

Apparently Snopes meets your standards. Your standards are yours and you're welcome to them.

That's just another deflection from the actual issue ... (which is evidence for an assertion)

But nice try.

I didn't seek to change them. You and Turtle demanded I justify my standard.

No - we demanded that you provide some meager shred of credible evidence for your assertion ... which you failed to do.

I read what I read and observed the bias I observed.

But you are apparently unable to tell us what that was ... in anything other than vaguest, most nebulous terms:

Ahh ... it was about something ... political ...

... yeah, yeah ... that's the ticket ...

Unless they publicly change their ways, then I have the facts.

You don't have jack squat ...

Shoot, you don't even have an argument/defense/justification for your assertion that isn't totally fallacious ...

I don't know why you have a problem with that.

I'm not a current (or former) employee of Wesayso Corporation.

You're the one going for ad nauseam.

No ... I'm just trying to pin you down and get you to show some evidence for the assertion you made ... which apparently you can't ... despite it supposedly being "CLEAR"

Had I said I don't trust Snopes, and at that point or after an explanation, you'd have accepted that, even if you didn't agree, we wouldn't have discussed it ad nauseam.

Based on the quality of your "explanations" thus far, I wouldn't bet the farm on it if I were you.

 

[Turtle]

You and Turtle demanded I justify my standard.

That's not true. It's not even a little bit true, and you know it. You stated that Snopes was one rung lower, credibility-wise, than a spoof site. I questioned that assertion and asked if you have any examples that would show them to be not credible.

I didn't demand anything. And I couldn't care less what your standards are, since this alleged bias is widely known and therefore your standards are irrelevant. Either Snopes is credible, or they aren't, and if they aren't, you should be able to show why they aren't. It should be a very simple thing to do, and it should require minimal time and effort, particularly in light of just how biased you claim them to be and how widespread the knowledge of this bias extends.

Your repeated failure to provide the requested examples of bias, I only asked for three, and instead merely continue with restatements of your original assertion as if that should be enough to convince me of their bias, in effect saying, "because I said so," says far more about your credibility than it does theirs. Your word is not enough to convince me, because your statement, and your lack of any substantiation for it, goes directly to your own credibility. Your statement is not credible, it is unsound, untrustworthy and irresponsible.

Further, you almost immediately trying to put this all on me by telling me that I don't see Snope's bias alleging because I don't want to see it, is demeaning and arrogant when there was no justifiable cause to be either. It's prideful arrogance, and thus has no credibility.

You are what you post. When you post opinions as facts, and refuse to substantiate them, you have no credibility at all.

 

[runrunner]

Is this reliable ?
Food stamps at pot shops banned under Colo. bill - The Denver Post