Author Topic: Guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (Read 901 times)

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #15 on:** November 15, 2005, 11:54:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Why do you assume it is not?

Im not
Just wondering Why we always just assume it is?

Someone says something and right away we go to Snopes and take for granted that everything they say is gospel because they say so.

Why?

Nash · « **Reply #16 on:** November 16, 2005, 12:14:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Someone says something and right away we go to Snopes and take for granted that everything they say is gospel because they say so.

Why?

As opposed to some guy just cut/pasting here his junk email and taking for "granted that everything they say is gospel?"

I mean... I realize that it must get, well.... fatiguing having your illusions so consistently shattered... But in the immortal words of G 'n freakin' R....

Lose your illusion.

Snopes doesn't just spew forth "blaaargh." It picks out the pertinent peices and examines them closely. ie. "He definitely had the casserole and not the salmon patties as we note the peices of undigested corn."

Like.... soooo sorry that "the world was a brighter and more fun place before snopes".....

Because life is already tough enough in the reality-based community. Know what I'm saying?

Prolly not.

Still..... it doesn't mean we gotta make life easier for you.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #17 on:** November 16, 2005, 12:28:47 AM »

Quote

Status: Multiple — see below.

Ummm before you guys get into a stupid argument why don't you actually read snopes. Just because it's on snopes doesn't automatically mean it's wrong. There are several wrong things in the email but several right as well. It doesn't take away from the honor that the tomb guards recieve.

Nash · « **Reply #18 on:** November 16, 2005, 12:34:48 AM »

Screw that.

This BBS is a wasteland of:

"Okay that may be wrong, but you get the idea."

No, and absolutely not, and BS, and no again.

It's lies, pure and simple, and if the truth about the Guard is not noble enough for you to handle, then seek to change the rules.

Reality is what it is.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #19 on:** November 16, 2005, 12:39:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
As opposed to some guy just cut/pasting here his junk email and taking for "granted that everything they say is gospel?"

I mean... I realize that it must get, well.... fatiguing having your illusions so consistently shattered... But in the immortal words of G 'n freakin' R....

Lose your illusion.

Snopes doesn't just spew forth "blaaargh." It picks out the pertinent peices and examines them closely. ie. "He definitely had the casserole and not the salmon patties as we note the peices of undigested corn."

Like.... soooo sorry that "the world was a brighter and more fun place before snopes".....

Because life is already tough enough in the reality-based community. Know what I'm saying?

Prolly not.

Still..... it doesn't mean we gotta make life easier for you.

Get a grip Nash,
you post as much BS here as anyone if it suits your arguement

Havent had one of my "illusions" shattered by Snopes that I can remember thankyouverymuch.
so I havent a clue where your comming from.
Nor do I understand your sarcasm as it is indeed unwarranted
I never at any point said snopes was wrong.
Just wondering why we all tend to accept whatever they say as absolute gospel.

Hell, some people dont even take the Gospel as being "gospel" yet we, and by "we" I mean all of us constantly point to Snopes as though it is the be all end all fact site.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #20 on:** November 16, 2005, 12:44:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Screw that.

This BBS is a wasteland of:

"Okay that may be wrong, but you get the idea."

No, and absolutely not, and BS, and no again.

It's lies, pure and simple, and if the truth about the Guard is not noble enough for you to handle, then seek to change the rules.

Reality is what it is.

Just remember Nash. Your an integral part of that wasteland of which you speak.

Again I never said snope was wrong. And nor have I on this particular issue.

My question was ment as a general question about Snopes itself and really didnt have anything to do with the guard at all.

Its just that I keep seeing everyone use snopes and got to thinking about it.
this just happened to be the thread I posed the question in.

Bruno · « **Reply #21 on:** November 16, 2005, 12:48:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Why is it when I try to click on this link. and a couple sites I've tried to go to "Microsoft office for small Buisness 2000" instalation wizard pops up?

I have no idea, I don't have any control over your CPU.

Quote

but how are we so sure Snopes has the real answer all the time?

As opposed to what? Some anonymous email that has been circulating around the web for years? Its up to you as to what you chose to believe or not. I would have more faith in a website like Snopes being right then the junk mail.

YMMV

EDIT:

I didn't read Nash's post before I rpelied but he said samething as I just did above.

Nash · « **Reply #22 on:** November 16, 2005, 12:50:00 AM »

I'll answer you in good faith.

Unlike you and I, Snopes doesn't just say stuff.

Snopes leads with the question, examines it, and either affirms the conclusion or debunks it based on a transpearent evaluation of the facts.

We don't, generally.

And, as demonstrated in this thread, some "notice how the world was a brighter and more fun place before Snopes."

Which - when you think about that - when you really think about that - means.... what?

So don't get yer skirt in a knot. It's not as if I'm making this up, and if so inclined, I could probably find a snapshot or two of your head so deeply submerged in the Kool-Aid as to make your objections here understandable.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #23 on:** November 16, 2005, 12:53:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno
I have no idea, I don't have any control over your CPU.

Wasnt blaming you for it nor was I addressing you specifically.
. Again, was a general question as I have been noticing this happening lately from time to time on different websites.
Was just hoping someone would have an explanation as to why.

sorry for the misunderstanding

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #24 on:** November 16, 2005, 12:57:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

So don't get yer skirt in a knot. It's not as if I'm making this up, and if so inclined, I could probably find a snapshot or two of your head so deeply submerged in the Kool-Aid as to make your objections here understandable.

You ever find anyone here you cant say that about, including yourself.
I wanna meet them LMAO

Nash · « **Reply #25 on:** November 16, 2005, 01:00:28 AM »

Laugh, and ponder the more fun place before Snopes.

Don't get me wrong.... I don't even know Snopes.

But I know aversion to truth when I see it. And when I see it? It Screams.

Enough.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #26 on:** November 16, 2005, 01:27:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Laugh, and ponder the more fun place before Snopes.

Don't get me wrong.... I don't even know Snopes.

But I know aversion to truth when I see it. And when I see it? It Screams.

Enough.

Truth of the matter I dont really care.

It really was simply a curious question and nothing more.
Your reading entirely too much into it

Bruno · « **Reply #27 on:** November 16, 2005, 08:56:38 AM »

If all you were was curious them all you needed to do was go to the site:

Quote

Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate?

A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site's name indicates that it contains reference pages. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.

Snopes FAQ

Also the sources for Snopes information on this particular subject are listed at the bottom of the page:

Quote

Colbert, Sgt. Jamelle. "Tomb of the Unknowns Awards 500th Tomb Guard Identification Badge."
The Pentagram. 11 January 2002.

Dyson, Spc. Eric. "A Half-Century of Solemn Duty."
The Pentagram. 3 April 1998.

Dyson, Spc. Eric. "Tomb Guards Plan Reunion Weekend."
The Pentagram. 27 March 1998.

Nguyen, Lan. "A Final Salute; Sentry Set a Record at Tomb of the Unknowns."
The Washington Post. 7 March 1996 (p. V1).

Riskind, Jonathan. "An Honor to Serve."
The Columbus Dispatch. 26 May 1997 (p. B3).

I am not sure what else you need but there's contact information and a 'Snopes Community' Messageboard and you can ask them directly. That is if your curiosity is as genuine as you claim.

moot · « **Reply #28 on:** November 16, 2005, 09:06:54 AM »

The straightdope website also answers questions on random noteworthy facts.
A recent article of theirs on Numerology might interest some posters

Eden · « **Reply #29 on:** November 16, 2005, 09:19:31 AM »

All words always fail to convey their intended meaning*

Perception is ever changing based on the constant motion of world. We read and understand based solely upon our mental state the instant that we read it. The words we are reading were written before by someone else in a different evironment and now we are interpreting them at our present environment (which is in motion). Try and read the same book twice. It always holds different meaning the scond time. Why? The words haven't changed, we have. So words cannot be relied upon to be reliable and anything which is not reliable must be in flux. The truth is never in flux (it is a constant and fixed reality) and so words must not be the truth. Therefore, if words always fail to be the truth then Snopes (relying on the truth of words) must also always fail. We cannot believe anything that we read because our written language is failed due to the motion of the world which results in variations in word meaning and what we infer the intent of the sentence to be.

(*Stolen mostly from Derrida)