[coolgeek]

> I've noticed

> on a number of occasions

> what appears to be

> what I would consider

(just setting the stage here... making sure we all understand the underpinning of the argument)

> a very staunch difference in Snopes' declaration of a claim vs what they say below in their explanation

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is an appreciable difference between the categorization and the basis/justification on which that particular categorization was chosen, that is a well-known problem with discrete binning.

As others have noted, however, in their demand for citations, it is unlikely that any such appreciable differences actually exist.

[theredlion]

No. You provide examples of why you think Snopes is worthy of believing.

There is no reason to believe them simply due to the fact that they are posited as an unbiased site.

They present information in bad faith then contradict themselves on the exact same page in the explanation of their claim to validity.

Burden of proof is on he who makes an outrageous claim, so by all means feel free to state your case as to why you think a particular, clearly untrustworthy website, is worthy of trust

[Can_Not]

Snopes sort of just is what it seems to be... I don't expect snopes to be right 100% about everything, but you're the one making an "outrageous claim" while demanding other people prove your vague unsourced allegations wrong.