Sorry Democrats, Justice was served.

This is a bit of a belated followup to a post I did over a year ago: Congress’ Creative Corruption.

Well it’s taken a year to set things straight and it seems they (the Democrats) didn’t get away with the travesty.  Crime never pays.  See below:

Proposition 8 … LGBT forced the hand.

I was nearly 30 when I first married, and it was not for lack of trying or lack of desire.  I had in fact been engaged previously to someone else 7 years earlier but I’m convinced now that the earlier endeavor would have resulted in a difficult marriage.   I had forced the engagement thinking that marriage would make me happy, make her happy, make us happy, and generally make everything peachy-keen.  But I would have been wrong.  Getting married that time would have been a needy response to  a long distance relationship that was generally a bad idea from the start.

Marriage never fixes anything on it’s own.  If you’re not already happy being together even when times are tough and when your differences (everyone has differences) are painfully obvious then getting married isn’t going to help at all.  In fact it may make things worse.

Marriage is, above all, a sacrament, introduced by God and ordained of God, no matter what your religion is, or regardless of who you call God … It is in so many ways the most symbolic representation of our relationship with our Creator.

So fortunately I spent another 7 years finding the right kind of person and to have done it at the right time of my life.  I now see in retrospect that it had to be that way, and I’m grateful that I met Melissa when I did … no earlier, no later.

One other thing had to happen too though … I had to know that God wanted it.  At the time I didn’t know how important that was, and neither was I seeking for “His” approval but in retrospect it was necessary in my case.

Seven years later, the second time I was engaged … this time, the right time … things were completely different.  I felt different.  I was different.  The girl was different.  The relationship was dramatically different.  Instead of a needy dependency for nurturing there was a calm assurance of deep respect and mutual appreciation.

as Americans … we believe in marriage … precisely because it is a religious institution.

In fact, it will probably surprise you that despite getting engaged on our 3rd encounter it was not love at first sight … nor was there great passion right away, neither did we even deeply love each other when we got engaged on our second date.  What’s more, I’d venture to say that both of us had preexisting relationships that were still at the time very heartfelt, but very quickly we learned something that made all that moot which I suspect few people probably learn when they make that choice:

God wanted it.

Thomas Jefferson’s “separation of Church and State” was never intended to mean a separation for God and State. Historically you’ll find that our founders believed our country had everything to do with “Divine Providence”.

Far be it from me to tell you what the spirit feels like.  I think that, like most people, throughout my life I’ve largely been guided by instincts, wisdom, and my heart (love, peace, joy, charity, hope, faith, etc).  Those things are wonderful and essential to a happy fulfilling life but for me feeling the spirit itself is an entirely different experience than all those things, and I can no more describe to you my spiritual experiences than describe the taste of salt to someone who’s never had anything salty.  Only a few times have I deeply felt it, and then only briefly for only a moment or two.  One experience stands out though.  The day after our 2nd encounter … it lasted for nearly 8 hours non-stop.  I remember going home for lunch that day wondering how much longer I could take it as it was so intense and constant.

While the experience was sweet … like honey is sweet (if you could taste the spirit it would be sweet exactly like honey), I was simultaneously overjoyed and a little upset and anxious.  I was upset and anxious because I knew what God was telling me and yet I had no idea whether Melissa was having any kind of the same experience.  What was I to say to her … “I know you don’t know me … and being nearly 30 I probably sound desperate enough to come up with something crazy like this … but God told me we’re supposed to get married.”

That would have gone over like a lead balloon, or so I’d supposed.  I was wrong, and we were engaged on our next date.

Truth be told, I did not say that … but I didn’t have to either.  We were married 3 months later and have been insanely happy with each other with a love that can only grow so quickly and immensely when two people are … well, to get real sappy … meant for each other.

the LGBT community is intent on removing all sacredness and turning it into a social tool to command respect in a way that would trample religious ideals.

Now this sounds like a really long winded way to get around to what this post was intended to discuss: Proposition 8, and why the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transexual) community forced the hand that put that proposition into motion, but everything I mentioned has everything to do with that topic.

Marriage is, above all, a sacrament, introduced by God and ordained of God, no matter what your religion is, or regardless of who you call God.  It is in so many ways the most symbolic representation of our relationship with our Creator.  There are sacraments in marriage, throughout marriage, and throughout each day in one’s marriage, that are all symbolic of our relationship with God.

Admittedly, I don’t think everyone should expect to have the courtship Melissa and I did, nor do I think it makes us or our marriage any “better”, but I do think there’s a synergy that exists when marriage is intertwined with the divine and I’m grateful ours started out that way.  Similarly marriage has demanded a greater reliance on God from me, and it seems obvious to me that my spiritual growth is and will continue to be accelerated through close association with my wife (even if I sometimes fail to take advantage of doing so).

[Government sanctioned traditional marriage] IS proof that we do not have a Godless state

Overwhelmingly we, the Americans, are a God-fearing people.  Unusually so, and surprisingly so since we are just a melting pot, an amalgamation of the refugees from all the other countries.  But with good reason are we so God-fearing.  Our country was largely founded by those who were deeply religious, and even today many of the refugees who come here do so so they can practice their beliefs in a free country.

In short, believing in God is part of our identity as Americans.  We believe in marriage, not because it’s a social institution, but precisely because it is a religious institution.

Similarly, nowhere in the constitution or any of the amending articles, is God excluded, and certainly not with respect to marriage either.  While respecting no particular religion, our leaders have always been God fearing people.

Cry foul if you want, Bill Maher, but those are the historical facts, and they are as true today as they were then.  You don’t like it, then move to Russia or China where the mention of God is still taboo.

Each member of [the LGBT] community needs to be loved and appreciated the same way [as are] straight people

Nowhere is the respect and reverence for God more evident in our federal documents and laws where the right to marry not only exists but is encouraged.  The reverence for God has nothing to do with “Church” lest others complain I’m promoting a theocracy or the favoring of one religion over another.  Thomas Jefferson’s “separation of Church and State” was never intended to mean a separation for God and State.  Historically you’ll find that our founders believed our country had everything to do with “Divine Providence”.  Our constitution was founded upon the idea that our inalienable rights exist only because God gave them to us.

We are only created equal because God is no respecter of persons (not because we can marry whomever we find cute or sexually stimulating).

Now the LGBT community wants to take that sacrament: marriage, and turn it into a self-serving political tool to forward their agenda.  Marriage is NOT a tool.  It IS a sacrament.  It IS proof that we do not have a Godless state like Russia, or China, or the Scandinavian countries who’ve seemed happy to rid themselves of the “outdated” institution of marriage.

[Proposition 8] does NOT mean people in the LGBT are any less equal, nor does it mean we think any less of them

Marriage will never be a purely social or political tool, although it’s often used for social and/or political reasons.  I’ve read many treatments on this topic and they’re all wrong, incorrectly stating that historically it was designed to be a tool to be used for social reasons so we should use it now to include the LGBT community.  It was not created for that purpose.  Rather marriage has historically been a religious institution first, often manipulated for social or political purposes.

That said, I want to be clear in my opinion that people in the LGBT community are no different than straight people with regards to their value to society – you may disagree with me, and that’s okay.  I think gays and lesbians have been poorly treated although it seems that they do tend to play the martyr (even now they’d claim I’m being condescending when I’m really sincere).  Each member of that community needs to be loved and appreciated the same way that straight people are, but unfortunately no amount of love will prevent their community from operating with a selfish mob-mentality insistent on destroying the sacred nature of marriage.

marriage must be government sanctioned, and must be the only sacrament sanctioned by a government

That is why Proposition 8 is necessary.  It does NOT mean people in the LGBT are any less equal, nor does it mean we think any less of them.  It’s only because marriage is the most universally sacred institution throughout all the world … it is the great common sacrament among all civilizations and religions … and the LGBT community is intent on removing all sacredness and turning it into a social tool to command respect and trample religious ideals.  Marriage is intrinsically a sacrament in nearly every sense of the word, and it is and always must be the only sacrament sanctioned by a government that was originally founded on Godly principles entirely by God-fearing men who never wanted our government to become an atheist entity.

Huckabee’s Secret Combination

According to the math Huckabee has no chance of winning even if he gets all the South-Eastern states. Why, then, is he staying in the race? Of course, it’s to split the socially conservative vote with Romney so McCain will win.

Seems crazy, though, as McCain stands for almost everything that Huck and Romney both oppose – so what’s going on here?

Well, the answer’s obvious isn’t it? All the other electoral drop-outs have endorsed McCain so they could be veep, so Huck must be doing the same, right? But an endorsement by Huckabee for McCain would seem so hypocritical given their diametrically opposed platforms. If Huckabee was a true conservative he would endorse the candidate with a conservative platform: Romney. So what is he to do?

And where is he of the most value for McCain? Exactly where he is.  Besides, dropping out and endorsing McCain would substantiate all the rumors of Huck’s supposed baptist-based bigotry. If he wants to really help McCain, and secure for himself the veep spot, he needs to split the conservative vote and effectively hand over the victory to McCain.

So we’ll see, rather soon, if it will pay off for Huckabee. Will he have sold his birthright (his platform) for porridge (mere revenge) or will he get the veep spot? And don’t kid yourself … he is indeed selling his platform – McCain is Anti-Marriage-Ammendment, Anti-Life-Amendment, Pro-taxes, Pro-Amnesty, and soft on moral issues, and Huckabee is doing far more for McCain than any of the other McCain endorsers combined.

Either way, whether it is revenge or to get the veep spot, it is despicable to split the vote just to deprive your closest platform of a victory. Such a man is the least deserving of anyone’s vote.

Allopathic Taliban suffer another blow

I’m a huge proponent of orthomolecular medicine, which is the practice of fighting diseases with the substances our bodies need to be healthy, ie. certain vitamins and minerals often in super-megadoses. Orthomolecular medicine is in direct opposition to allopathic (traditional) medicine, which uses substances that our bodies normally don’t use (example: all pharmaceutical drugs) for medicine in order to fight diseases.

… the NIH published a study last week that Vitamin C does indeed fight cancer, while not affecting non-cancerous tissue. In fact it apparently does this better than any other substance known to mankind

To the chagrin of the Allopathic Taliban (those who blindly commit professional violence against those who use or prescribe vitamins in a therapeutic manner as a matter of professional bigotry) the NIH published a study last week that Vitamin C does indeed fight cancer, while not affecting non-cancerous tissue. In fact it apparently does this better than any other substance known to mankind. Again, that’s NIH, the National Institutes of Health saying this – the same institute who disparaged Linus Pauling, 2 time Nobel Laureate, 30 years ago for saying the exact same thing: Vitamin C fights cancer and strengthens the body. This claim about Vitamin C is in fact listed as quakery by allopaths and their minions everywhere. Other claims even attempt to suggest that Vitamin C increases cancer with the most hokey reasoning imaginable.

Now they’re disparaging Pauling (an easy thing to do now since Pauling is dead) for not going about it differently 30 years ago. For example, Mark Levine (a pseudo-advocate of Vit C therapies) says “If Linus Pauling, the two-time Nobel laureate turned vitamin C zealot, had taken an equally dispassionate stance 30 years ago, who knows where the vitamin would be in oncology today”, then later equivocates the questing that the medical community screwed up by disparaging Vitamin C “is akin to ‘Do you still beat your wife?’ “.

Levine equivocates the questing that the medical community screwed up by disparaging Vitamin C “is akin to ‘Do you still beat your wife?’ “. The fact is that they have, and if that’s like “[beating] your wife”, then they’re as guilty as a rabid male chauvinist.

Well, I don’t ask the question. I state it as a matter of fact: The allopathic medical community as a whole has systematically sabotaged every study they possibly could over the last 30 years that would have otherwise vindicated Pauling’s claims. Why? Because he was an outsider to the medical community? Because pharmaceutical companies were scared? Because it was just so incredibly different (the horrors: cheap vitamins for therapy!)? Who knows why they have done this … it doesn’t matter why. The fact is that they have sabotaged every megavitamin study ever, and I don’t mean offense to Mark Levine but if that’s like “[beating] your wife”, then as a society the AMA is as guilty as a rabid male chauvinist by completely abandoning their Hippocratic oath with respect to orthomolecular therapies.

Levine himself did that when he discouraged people from using megavitamins in the conclusion of his study that proved Vitamin C kills cancer while not hurting adjacent healthy tissue, and later saying : “This is not ready for patients yet”, and just that “we should reinvestigate”, and “there may be a new hope coming, but it’s certainly not here”.  1000’s who’ve added years to their lives, and a wealth of data on the safety of Vit C protocols strongly disagree that “it’s certainly not here”.  Shame on you Levine and others for knowingly proving it’s safety, simplicity, and efficacy and then discouraging usage for what I can only assume is out of fear for professional retribution.  Hippocrates be damned.  Such are not doctors nor health practitioners, but mere scientists.

And that’s why your doctor would rather stuff your body full of toxic things it’s never experienced before, than to use vitamins and other chemistries that fortify and build human tissue. Never mind that AIDS patients have received as much as 300,000 mg / day of buffered vitamin C shot directly into their bloodstream without any adverse long-term effects, your doctor will still insist that it’s unhealthy for you to consume, just orally, a mere 5,000 mg/day (1/60 as much). Apparently allopathic doctors (most doctors) feel it’s okay if all your hair falls out while killing off massive amounts of vital healthy skin tissue with traditional (allopathic) cancer therapy, but heaven forbid you suffer a little bowel discomfort from consuming too much vitamin C because it might dehydrate you.  Apparently none of them heard of drinking more water.

The truth is that you can avoid bowel discomfort / diarrhea if you take buffered C (ex:sodium ascorbate) along with another anti-oxidant vitamin E, and plenty of water.  I’ve found you can guarantee no bowel discomfort with mega-doses of Vit C in a delicious shake (which tastes like lighly carbonated “gogurt”) by blending 20g Vit C powder in with 10 flavored anti-acid wafers (calcium-carbonate), along with 1/3 cup sugar and 2 cups water.  If you have gas after mega-C doses then you need to drink a lot more water than you’ve been drinking, which also has innumerable other benefits.

Eventually the reign of the allopathic Taliban will come to and end as more studies like this are brought to light by highly principled physicians who can read beyond poorly done studies using insufficient dosage levels. It’s just a matter of time before the old doctors die off and the new ones can put the blame where it deserves: tradition and professional prejudice.

Sadly, it’s just a shame that in the meantime so many patients will go broke with expensive and toxic drugs while needlessly suffering illness and even unecessary death.

I incidentally, have been taking an average 20,000 mg/ day for 4 years now and have never felt better. I have taken as much as 60,000 mg/day orally with no adverse side effects.

Gateway Computer Doesn’t Honor Their Warranties

What would you do if you reported a defect on your laptop before the warranty was expired, and they said, “We’ll replace it as soon as we get one in inventory”, then they never sent it. When you called to ask where it was, they say “Too late. It’s not in warranty anymore.”

Because that’s what happened to me. Check it out… this is the log from our chat … and pay close attention to how they tried to pin the blame on me (start at the bolded portion):

Adam_GWER1387 joined the incident. Adam_GWER1387 says: Thank you for contacting technical support. My name and badge number are Adam_GWER1387. Please hold while I review your issue. david austin says: Okay[skip all the introduction here]Adam_GWER1387 says: I understand that your stylus has never worked in your computer, is that correct? david austin says: correct. Adam_GWER1387 says: Please wait while I research on your issue? david austin says: Yes, I would expect some information from my previous requests to resolve this issue (where I was told a replacement would be arriving). Adam_GWER1387 says: Actually, there is no replacement request in your database, David. If you want I can request for a replacement for your stylus now. Would that be okay with you? david austin says: Yes, that would be great. My last request happened over the phone. I guess I’ll know better now. He said there were none in inventory, but one would be sent as soon as the inventory was replenished. Adam_GWER1387 says: I will first check if the stylus is in the inventory. david austin says: thanks Adam_GWER1387 says: Please wait while I check the stylus david austin says: okay Adam_GWER1387 says: Thanks for waiting. david austin says: sure Adam_GWER1387 says: You said that you purchased the computer in March of 2007, is that correct? david austin says: yes, that’s correct. And the pen wasn’t working form the start. Adam_GWER1387 says: When did you call Gateway about this issue? david austin says: It would have been sometime in may Adam_GWER1387 says: IT shows here that your first call was on June 8 of 2007. david austin says: That’s it. I was in a tradeshow lat may and anothe early june. it was in that time period. Adam_GWER1387 says: Just to let you know that you only have a 90 days warranty of your computer. Since you called on the first week of June, your warranty had already expired. That is why the agent cannot replace your stylus pen. If you call a little bit earlier like around April, we had the change to replace it. david austin says: I don’t think that’s 90 dys. Let’s do the math. All month April, all May, that’s only 62 days max. Add 10 days for March that’s 72, add 8 for June,that’s 80 days. Still under warranty. david austin says: So if I was still under warranty why wasn’t it sent? Adam_GWER1387 says: I really dont know why they did not issue the replacement of your stylus pen. Adam_GWER1387 says: Because today, i really cannot make a request for your replacement because you are already out of warranty. If you want you can try to call to the person you contacted to in order that they can escalate your issue. david austin says: Does it show what my call was about? Isn’t that proof enough. This guy does as many calls as you do, he’s not going to remember it.. Would You? I wouldn’t. I took it on good faith that you guys would keep your word. Is this how you run things there? Adam_GWER1387 says: If I have the power to make your computer back in warranty, I would do it. But I really cannot make a request here in your database for the replacementof your stylus. Why only now that you have contacted here when it was way over a month when the tech told you to call again if there is no replacement. Usually a replacement would only last for 5-7 business days. david austin says: What are you saying? It’s my fault that your tech did not keep his word? Within 7 days I would have been out of warranty anyway and we would be where we are now. Besides, it wasn’t in inventory, I would have had to wait much longer. Your man screwed up and you’re trying to stick me with a $50 replacement bill, when I reported it while under warranty. david austin says: What’s right abut that? Adam_GWER1387 says: Why did you contact us earlier? Adding the 7 business would only be June 15 which is 2 days before your warranty expired. Why did you have to make it to this month to contact us. I really cannot make a request forthe replacement of the stylus pen, David. It says here that you are already out of 90 days warranty. david austin says: Re-contacting you within the warranty period is not my job. Warranties for reported items do not go null and void when it isn’t shipped. Any judge will substantiate that in court. The issue is NOT when I RE-contacted you. Never will be, and any attorney will back that up. I reported it WHILE under warranty, if you do not honor that you are violating the terms of that warranty. Would you like to disagree because I’m recording this. david austin says: Incidentally, it was NOT in inventory, it would have not taken 7 days (which I said earlier). According to the person I talked with it would take some time to get back into inventory. david austin says: Hello? david austin says: I’m starting to think that the guy I talked to was trying to pull a fast one on me so you could try to violate the warranty contract as you are currently attempting to do. I wonder if it was really not in inventory.[ … this went on for 1 hour and 52 minutes- during which time I talked with “Joseph”, Adam’s supervisor, who also tried to insinuate that I didn’t deserve the pen replacement due to the fact that I didn’t call a second time to follow up on the shipment before the warranty expired] He then said:please contact our Retail Service Dispatch team for further assistance regarding your replacement part. Unfortunately, we can longer issue a replacement since you are already out-of-warranty regardless when you reported this matter. The toll free number is (1-877-285-6043).

I was “out of warranty” when I reported this matter!? What planet is this guy living on? I reported the matter (broken pen) WHILE it was under warranty. If they choose to not ship it within the warranty period they think they have effectively made the warranty null and void?! Apparently so.

Don’t think this is about a lousy $50. It’s about justice, and about Gateway doing what’s honest and true by honoring their warranties. I’m sure I’m not the first to suffer this injustice. Buyer Beware!!!! I’ll follow up with the “retail Service Dispatch” team (whatever, sounds like code for the “waste-your-time-until-we-think-you’ll-give-up team”), and let you know how it turns out.

Congress’s Creative Corruption

Yesterday’s congressional mayhem was telling of the corruption rife in D.C. It looks unintentional at the onset, but the way it’s upheld and reinforced tells an uglier story. Although strong handed tactics were rumored when the republicans were in power, what the democrats did yesterday in broad daylight while in session went straight for the jugular of corruption. The corrupt result stands too, although the democrats have “apologized” they refuse to rectify the wrongdoing. At best the travesty will be brought before the house ethics committee where it will quietly die in what Boehner (Former Speaker) calls a “black hole”.

The corrupt result stands too, although they democrats have “apologized” they refuse to rectify the wrongdoing.

The content of the bill itself is nowhere near as important as the voting corruption that surrounded it – even congressmen all admitted that that the bill was relatively benign (which is why the democrats will get away with this) – in fact the bill itself is hardly worth mentioning here. What is worth mentioning is exactly what happened… and in plain English (most descriptions I’ve read about it seemed geared more toward political pundits).

Imagine that you had the power to decide the outcome of a vote while votes where changing left and right, by closing the voting process just before the result would be out of favor … then demand a re-vote if anyone complains. Only a corrupt gavel-wielding administrator would do that, right?

Imagine that you had the power to decide the outcome of a vote while votes where changing left and right, by closing the voting process just before the result would be out of favor (even though in in this case it really wasn’t in the closer’s favor). Only a corrupt gavel-wielding administrator would do that, right? Well, that’s exactly what happened. Then some more corruption followed, and then some more. All within the space of about an hour.

The republican sponsored bill on first vote was tied 214-214 (which is a failed bill – it must have a majority to pass, ie. 215-213). Congressmen are allowed to change their vote afterwards until all deliberations are complete. Two democrats changed then their votes to “no”, probably to insure that it wouldn’t pass. Three republicans then changed their votes to “yes” so it would pass. Note that these three republicans are all Cuban Americans and almost always vote identically – if one or two change their votes often the rest will follow suit.

… but as the last republican vote was called out the Speaker Pro Tempore (the temporary Speaker of the House) banged his gavel at the same time, and claimed that in doing so he invalidated the last republican vote.

All 5 changes were called out by the house recording clerk – so everyone would know it would pass at that point, but as the last republican vote was called out the Speaker Pro Tempore (the temporary Speaker of the House) banged his gavel at the same time, and claimed that in doing so he invalidated the last republican vote.

What’s more is that BEFORE the gavel actually hit the block the electronic scoreboard showed all 5 new changes (the bill passed) with the word “FINAL”. Surely this, combined with the clerks announcement, would establish it’s passage, yes? Not according to democrats, and in fact the gavel-slamming speaker (pro-tempore) later said on television “I called it 214-214”, as if he had the power to discount a vote that was both announced and on the scoreboard prior to the gavel drop. Now if that isn’t willfull corruption of the system I don’t know what is.

… the democrats were still unwilling to concede defeat and tried to vacate the vote (pronounce it null and void). Okay, so if you don’t like the outcome you just invalidate it?

But the ensuing corruption then continued even deeper. After it was obvious that it passed before the gavel had dropped, a bunch of democrat congressmen changed their votes to “no” in order to overturn the decision. Hey! If the “Speaker” said it was over after discounting republican changes already established, why should even later democrat changes be considered?

Now this is where it gets really ugly (as if it wasn’t ugly enough). After the republicans chanted “Shame! Shame!” (among other things) the democrats were still unwilling to concede defeat and tried to vacate the vote (pronounce it null and void). Okay, so if you don’t like the outcome you just invalidate it? Republicans were understandably incensed, but since the democrats are in power the democrats can reconsider any vote they want (call it to another vote), which is exactly what they did. Now it was about politics. Nobody even cared what the bill was originally about. It was about the democrats vs. the republicans. Over half of the republicans protested and left the room while it was re-voted upon and failed (duh! Everyone knows the majority wins a popularity contest and democrats are in the majority). At this point all the democrats that voted for the bill voted against it so their party could win the battle.  Corruption with a capital C.

Now it was about politics. Nobody even cared what the bill was originally about. [the re-vote] was about the democrats vs. the republicans. Everyone knows the majority wins a popularity contest.

Former Republican Speaker Hastert then grabbed the arm of existing Democrat Speaker Hoyer, poking him in the chest saying ““This doesn’t reflect well on the House”. When the argument ended, Hastert released Hoyer’s arm with a shove and pushed past him. Frankly I think Hasert was all too kind in his words, but Hasert is a classy guy and believes in respecting authority even if it is invested poorly.

The problem with hoax busters

I was thinking about thwarting hoaxes this morning. Many of the e-mail virus filtering software claim to also deal with hoaxes, but do they really? I’d like to send a link for hoax-email-filtering to those I know that get sucked into hoaxes most often, but there’s so much email-filtering-software and none of it seems to make very significant claims about it’s ability to filter out hoaxes.

None of these websites allow comments to be attached to the information regarding each hoax. Any site that claims to identify hoaxes should be confident enough to allow public comments to be posted with each hoax indentification.

There are a lot of websites out there who claim to be the authority on identifying popular hoaxes. Snopes.com seems to be the most popular, and they do seem to have a thorough database – largely because they have such a large userbase who notify the webmaster of new hoaxes. I’m not a big fan of snopes though because I’ve historically seen significant bias in their methods (to the extent of improper identification). Furthermore their forums aren’t visitor friendly, creating and overusing their own acronyms and refusing to define them for thier visitors.

Here’s some other “hoax” resources:
urbanlegends.about.com
hoaxbusters.ciac.org
www.breakthechain.org
www.truthorfiction.com

Hoaxbusters.ciac.org and urbanlegends.about.com seem to be the most complete (at least they seemed to easily find very recent hoaxes I was familiar with).

None of these websites allow comments to be attached to the information regarding each hoax. Any site that claims to identify hoaxes should be confident enough to allow public comments to be posted with each hoax indentification. Other than hoaxbusters.ciac.org there is little to no qualifying information that gives me any warm fuzzies that the information they’re providing is unbiased, and yet nearly everyone seems to believe in them implicitly. Frankly I find that quite dangerous and misleading. Who made these guys the hoax gestapo, and why should we trust them?

… those who ridicule others for believing in a hoax might be just as rediculous if they implicitly put their faith in a hoax-buster of whom they know nothing about.

In short, it seems the whole internet hoax debunking mechanism is woefully innadequate. There is no policing of the hoax police. It seems anyone with HTML skills can establish themselves as an hoax authority, and those who ridicule others for believing in a hoax might be just as rediculous if they implicitly put their faith in a hoax-buster of whom they know nothing about. I challenge self-procalimed hoax authorities to at least allow some public discussion to be attached to each opinion about a possible hoax. Better yet – make it a poll so the public can read the comments and decide for themselves how hoaxable (yes, I just invented a word) it is.

And if there exists a reasonably priced and reliable hoax-filter for email will someone please let the world know about it? Thanks!