Acceptable Humour from an earlier time.

[Confused]

How about an arguably less acceptable advert from another time?

 

https://drprem.com/business/no-more-nailsa-miracle

 

 

[Ralf11]

WD-40 is not a penetrating oil, but will help more than nothing.  Kroil is a good penetrating oil.  WD-40 is a protectant ---> Water Displacement, and the  40th formula he tried, as the story goes.

 

Now, let's move on to Thread-lockers - Loctite makes blue and red (for super locking, removable only with heat or impact), but they also make a nice purple for very low strength locking, and green (wicks in and does not require disassembly)

 

But the important thing when locking a thread is to first clean it up - get rid of all the oily residue.

[wgscott]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Good point. It’s a penetrating oil, good for loosening rusty or just stuck fasteners like bolts and nuts, not so much for lubricating, but I do know several gun owners who use it regularly in place of gun oil. Don’t think I would though.

 

WD stands for "water dispersant".  It has a foaming agent that makes it useful to clean old lubricant out of stuff.  I use it to clean out my Chris King hub ring drive. Then I lubricate it with an actual lubricant.

[wgscott]

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

WD-40 is not a penetrating oil, but will help more than nothing.  Kroil is a good penetrating oil.  WD-40 is a protectant ---> Water Displacement, and the  40th formula he tried, as the story goes.

Thanks.  Sorry I missed that before I posted.

 

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Now, let's move on to Thread-lockers - Loctite makes blue and red

 

Note the avatar.

[Ralf11]

yes, hence my disquisition on thread lockers - yet I note that yours appears to British...  can it stop the Brexit?

[Solstice380]

16 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Accusations of liberal bias are not the same thing as liberal bias.  I'm vaguely aware that Snopes is dismissed by those who like to forward nonsense on Facebook. 

 

Was just saying, not supporting.  Anyway... who gets to decide which is which?

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

 

Was just saying, not supporting.  Anyway... who gets to decide which is which?

I think it largely depends upon which side of the political fence you stand on. If one  is a lefty, one probably supports Snopes, as they tend to couch their answers in terms that favor the liberal party line. OTOH, if one is a righty, Snopes tends to debunk ideas that right-wingers tend to hold as sacred truth. So, they would not be    Snopes supporters. I am skeptical because their findings seem to be largely biased, and what people use them for is to find out the truth about modern myths, rumors and innuendo. I’ve caught them in a number of untruths in their reporting, making them, for me, unreliable.

[Samuel T Cogley]

27 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I think it largely depends upon which side of the political fence you stand on. If one  is a lefty, one probably supports Snopes, as they tend to couch their answers in terms that favor the liberal party line. OTOH, if one is a righty, Snopes tends to debunk ideas that right-wingers tend to hold as sacred truth. So, they would not be    Snopes supporters. I am skeptical because their findings seem to be largely biased, and what people use them for is to find out the truth about modern myths, rumors and innuendo. I’ve caught them in a number of untruths in their reporting, making them, for me, unreliable.

 

Can you share just one?

 

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Can you share just one?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

[Samuel T Cogley]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's a rhetorical question, right?

 

Am I missing something?  I'm genuinely curious if Snopes is publishing non-factual information.

[christopher3393]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes_and_editorializing_fact_checks_137551.html

[mansr]

37 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Am I missing something?  I'm genuinely curious if Snopes is publishing non-factual information.

Is it "liberal" to say that it's true Kobe Bryant could play the piano? Or that a video of a fox purportedly suckling baby koalas is in fact showing perfectly normal fox pups and was filmed in Montreal? Those are both topics of recent Snopes posts. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of either. After all, they back up their claims with references.

 

I suppose they could be biased in which stories they choose to investigate. It's impossible to tell. Most of the posts aren't really political at all. An alleged WD-40 ad certainly isn't.

 

Now George has previously made accusations of "liberal bias," then failed to provide any evidence to support the claims. I understand such behaviour perfectly normal for Americans of a conservative bent.

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Am I missing something?  I'm genuinely curious if Snopes is publishing non-factual information.

 

Most likely no, what they are guilty of is publishing truths that conservatives don't like.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes_and_editorializing_fact_checks_137551.html

 

Quote

While Snopes deserves credit for its “just the facts, ma’am” approach to selecting its subjects, we have observed anecdotally that Snopes writers are in the habit of injecting editorial language or opinions into their fact checks. For instance, they called an unproven claim on knife crimes in London “heavy on Islam-blaming but light on evidence.” They labeled a questionable article on supposed “animal brothels” in Germany a “transparent attempt to spark fear and hatred.”

 

not exactly the smoking gun I was expecting

[Samuel T Cogley]

41 minutes ago, mansr said:

Is it "liberal" to say that it's true Kobe Bryant could play the piano? Or that a video of a fox purportedly suckling baby koalas is in fact showing perfectly normal fox pups and was filmed in Montreal? Those are both topics of recent Snopes posts. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of either. After all, they back up their claims with references.

 

I suppose they could be biased in which stories they choose to investigate. It's impossible to tell. Most of the posts aren't really political at all. An alleged WD-40 ad certainly isn't.

 

Now George has previously made accusations of "liberal bias," then failed to provide any evidence to support the claims. I understand such behaviour perfectly normal for Americans of a conservative bent.

 

I remember back in the early Aughts being almost deluged with forwarded content from friends (this was before Facebook became a thing).  I found Snopes to be quite useful in debunking that nonsense.  But I have to say (perhaps somewhat sheepishly or naively) that I wasn't aware that some believe Snopes can't be trusted.  After looking into it a little more, I understand now that his is just an artifact of propaganda being fact-checked.

[kumakuma]

Quote

Are we Republicans or Democrats? Conservatives or liberals? Administration supporters or a secretly-funded tool of the opposition? According to our readership, we’re all those things — from what they tell us, we’ve performed the remarkable feat of being decidedly biased in every possible direction.

 

https://www.snopes.com/2015/04/17/eye-of-the-beholder/

 

An older post that suggests that people believe what they want to believe.

 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Can you share just one?

 

Sort of, I guess. It was to do with a rumor about President Clinton. The rumor was that Clinton was “renting out” the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House in exchange for political contributions. Snopes said that it wasn’t true and was merely right-wing propaganda. It turned out that it was true, but Snopes never acknowledged that they erred or retracted their debunk of the rumor.

But, I ask you to keep in mind that I have paid no attention to Snopes in at least 10 years. For all I know, they have cleaned up their act and are more accurate now, with less bias - but, somehow, I doubt it!

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

https://www.snopes.com/2015/04/17/eye-of-the-beholder/

 

An older post that suggests that people believe what they want to believe.

 

One thing that we can all take as gospel. The US government has become a giant Dystopia, which ever side we’re on!

[Samuel T Cogley]

15 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Sort of, I guess. It was to do with a rumor about President Clinton. The rumor was that Clinton was “renting out” the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House in exchange for political contributions. Snopes said that it wasn’t true and was merely right-wing propaganda. It turned out that it was true, but Snopes never acknowledged that they erred or retracted their debunk of the rumor.

But, I ask you to keep in mind that I have paid no attention to Snopes in at least 10 years. For all I know, they have cleaned up their act and are more accurate now, with less bias - but, somehow, I doubt it!

 

Thanks for this.  FWIW, I can't find anything about "Lincoln Bedroom" anywhere on Snopes.

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

One thing that we can all take as gospel. The US government has become a giant Dystopia, which ever side we’re on!

 

Or, foreign entities are successfully manipulating public opinion in a way that makes us resigned to their manipulation, which is likely part of the plan.

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Sort of, I guess. It was to do with a rumor about President Clinton. The rumor was that Clinton was “renting out” the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House in exchange for political contributions. Snopes said that it wasn’t true and was merely right-wing propaganda. It turned out that it was true, but Snopes never acknowledged that they erred or retracted their debunk of the rumor.

But, I ask you to keep in mind that I have paid no attention to Snopes in at least 10 years. For all I know, they have cleaned up their act and are more accurate now, with less bias - but, somehow, I doubt it!

I can't find anything regarding that story on Snopes. It's a long time ago, though, so it may have vanished in some site rebuild. Anyhow, a single mistake (and I'd be surprised if they'd never made one) is not evidence of any bias.

 

I also fail to see the relevance to this thread. Unless, of course, there was a can of WD-40 on the nightstand when those guests visited. To loosen up their wallets, naturally.

[bobbmd]

how many angels can sit on a head of a pin? does Snopes address that? oops that was already covered by St Thomas Aquinas-- talk about liberals/radicals(Jesuits that is)

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Thanks for this.  FWIW, I can't find anything about "Lincoln Bedroom" anywhere on Snopes.

It was twenty some years ago! Clinton was elected in 1990, that’s 30 years ago. I wouldn’t expect it to still be there.

And is this topic really worth going on about? I don’t think so. Let’s go back to talking about audio and music, shall we?

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

I can't find anything regarding that story on Snopes. It's a long time ago, though, so it may have vanished in some site rebuild. Anyhow, a single mistake (and I'd be surprised if they'd never made one) is not evidence of any bias.

 

I also fail to see the relevance to this thread. Unless, of course, there was a can of WD-40 on the nightstand when those guests visited. To loosen up their wallets, naturally.

I agree 100%. Like I said Clinton was elected 30 years ago. I wouldn’t expect stuff that old and out of date would still be there. It’s nowhere near the only left-leaning gaff that Snopes has made but it is the only one that I remember specifically. Anyway, let us move on. This is a waste of time. 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Or, foreign entities are successfully manipulating public opinion in a way that makes us resigned to their manipulation, which is likely part of the plan.

I don’t think that’s it. Our government has become so polarized that nothing can get done. Rome burns while Congress fiddles.