« snopes urban legend

Snopes urban legend posts

U.S. It appears there is an agenda to lead the American people to believe all is well/safe at the Southern U.S. border~ What a 'surprise' http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/snopes-no-more-the-self-proclaimed-debunker-of-urban-legend-has
Snopes NO MORE The Self-proclaimed Debunker Of Urban Legend has been debunked
patriotaction.net
By Gaylan King Wow...read this one! Then check out the suggested web sites!!! Many of the emails that I have sent or forwarded that had any anti-Obama information in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out. For some time Read more ... we’ve seen reports that Elaina Kagan was Obama’s a…
9 days ago
Suzanne iPhone USERS! The NSA can reportedly access all your iPhone data through a program called DROPOUT JEEP I searched Snopes to see if this was an Urban Legend. No results, so I submitted the Forbes article to them.
The NSA Reportedly Has Total Access To The Apple iPhone
www.forbes.com
The NSA can reportedly access all your iPhone data through a program called DROPOUT JEEP.
10 days ago
Tina
BDTN: Snopes NO MORE The Self-proclaimed Debunker Of Urban Legend has been debunked
breakingdownthnews.blogspot.com
Snopes NO MORE The Self-proclaimed Debunker Of Urban Legend has been debunked
10 days ago
Lynn Know your history.......... Claim: The term "Black Friday" originated with the practice of selling off slaves on the day after Thanksgiving. FALSE Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2013] Is this true? DID YOU KNOW: Black Friday ste Read more ... mmed from slavery? It was the day after Thanksgiving when slave traders would sell slaves for a discount to assist plantation owners with more helpers for the upcoming winter (for cutting and stacking fire wood, winterproofing etc.), hence the name ... Origins: "Black Friday" is the (originally derisive, now mainstream) term for the phenomenon that takes place in the U.S. on the day after Thanksgiving Thursday, when millions of consumers who get the day off from work or school crowd into stores for what is traditionally considered the beginning of the Christmas shopping season. The origins of the term "Black Friday" have become somewhat obscured in the mists of time, however, leading people to invent fanciful explanations for how that phrase became attached to the day after Thanksgiving. The example reproduced above posits the term started with a tradition of slaveowners or slave traders using that day as an opportunity for selling their wares. The use of "Black Friday" as a descriptor for the day after Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the selling of slaves, though, and the term didn't originate until nearly a century after the practice of slavery was abolished in the U.S. The earliest known use of "Black Friday" in such a context stems from 1951 and referred to the practice of workers calling in sick on the day after Thanksgiving in order to have four consecutive days off (because that day was not yet commonly offered as a paid day off by employers): WHAT TO DO ABOUT "FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING" "Friday-after-Thanksgiving-itis" is a disease second only to the bubonic plague in its effects. At least that's the feeling of those who have to get production out, when the "Black Friday" comes along. The shop may be half empty, but every absentee was sick — and can prove it. What to do? Many companies have tried the standard device of denying Thanksgiving Day pay to employees absent the day before and after the holiday. Trouble is, you can't deny pay to those legitimately ill. But what's legitimate? Tough to decide these days of often miraculously easy doctors' certificates. Glenn L. Martin, Baltimore aircraft manufacturer has another solution: When you decide you want to sweeten up the holiday kitty, pick Black Friday to add to the list. That's just what Martin has done. Friday after Thanksgiving is the company's seventh paid holiday. We're not suggesting more paid holidays just to get out of a hole. But, if you can make a good trade in bargaining, there are lots of worse things than having a holiday on a day that was half holiday anyway. Shouldn't cost too much for that reason, either. By 1961 the term "Black Friday" (and "Black Saturday" as well) was being commonly used in a derisive sense by Philadelphia police, who had to deal with the mayhem and headaches caused by all the extra pedestrian and vehicular traffic created by hordes of shoppers heading for the city's downtown stores on the two days after Thanksgiving: For downtown merchants throughout the nation, the biggest shopping days normally are the two following Thanksgiving Day. Resulting traffic jams are an irksome problem to the police and, in Philadelphia, it became customary for officers to refer to the post-Thanksgiving days as Black Friday and Black Saturday. In a 1994 article, former Philadelphia Bulletin reporter Joseph P. Barrett recalled how he took part in popularizing the term "Black Friday" throughout Philadelphia in the early 1960s, from which it eventually spread into nationwide usage: The term "Black Friday" came out of the old Philadelphia Police Department's traffic squad. The cops used it to describe the worst traffic jams which annually occurred in Center City on the Friday after Thanksgiving. It was the day that Santa Claus took his chair in the department stores and every kid in the city wanted to see him. It was the first day of the Christmas shopping season. Schools were closed. Late in the day, out-of-town visitors began arriving for the Army-Navy football game. Every "Black Friday," no traffic policeman was permitted to take the day off. The division was placed on 12 hours of duty, and even the police band was ordered to Center City. It was not unusual to see a trombone player directing traffic. Two officers were assigned to intersections along Market Street to control the throngs of pedestrians. The department also placed police officers outside parking garages because the "lot filled" signs failed to deter motorists from lining up on the curb lane outside the garage. This reduced street size from two lanes to one. This caused traffic to back up and block traffic at the next intersection. This caused massive gridlock. In 1959, the old Evening Bulletin assigned me to police administration, working out of City Hall. Nathan Kleger was the police reporter who covered Center City for the Bulletin. In the early 1960s, Kleger and I put together a front-page story for Thanksgiving and we appropriated the police term "Black Friday" to describe the terrible traffic conditions. [W]e used it year after year. Then television picked it up. One popular alternative explanation for the origins of "Black Friday" is that it is the day on which retailers finally began to show a profit for the year (in accounting terms, moving from being "in the red" to "in the black") after operating at an overall loss from January through mid-November: If the day is the year's biggest for retailers, why is it called Black Friday? Because it is a day retailers make profits – black ink, said Grace McFeeley of Cherry Hill Mall. "I think it came from the media," said William Timmons of Strawbridge & Clothier. "It's the employees, we're the ones who call it Black Friday," said Belle Stephens of Moorestown Mall. "We work extra hard. It's a long hard day for the employees." However, the earliest known use of this accounting-related explanation for the origins of the term "Black Friday" dates from 1981, many years after Philadelphia police had been using the phrase in reference to traffic issues. Last updated: 24 November 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/holidays/thanksgiving/blackfriday.asp#qbqbGH0UY2Ct3LLi.99
11 days ago
Lee Ignore sNoPes,..they are PAID to lie and protect OHBama! I have long forgot about Black Jack Pershing,..but this is well documented. Even $$$$ from "Elites" for sNoPes can't pay it off,..
Black Jack Pershing vs. Muslim Terrorists - Urban Legends
urbanlegends.about.com
Did U.S. Gen. 'Black Jack' Pershing rid the Philippines of Islamic extremism by executing Muslim terrorists and burying them with pig's blood and entrails?
11 days ago
Anne According to Snopes (who have their own credibility problems) it is urban legend that the tree will be called a "holiday" tree vs "Christmas" tree. But I find the statement by Steven Levy to be excellent and worthy of sharing widely. What do YOU th Read more ... ink?
Mobile Uploads
Apparently the White House referred to Christmas T
12 days ago
Barb Sorry, but the detective in me demanded that I check this story on Snopes. This is what I found: This tale about a pastor who goes "undercover" as a homeless man is reminiscent of an urban legend based on the true story of an experiment conducted fo Read more ... r a social psychology class at Princeton University in 1970, in which seminary students were sent on urgent assignments designed to take them past an actor posing as a person in need of assistance. Researchers measured whether (and how) students interrupted their pressing tasks to render help, and analyzed the results. But as for this particular version of the "incognito clergyman" tale, it appears to be a fabricated story. No one has yet identified a real pastor by the name of Jeremiah Steepek or found any church, large or small, headed by a pastor with that name. Nor has anyone been able to verify the event described, even though it was supposedly witnessed by several thousand congregants. Additionally, the photograph of "Pastor Jeremiah Steepek" that accompanies the online version of this story is complete unrelated to the narrative: it's actually a picture of an unidentified homeless man snapped by photographer Brad J. Gerrard in Richmond (London). THAT BEING SAID – this is still a wonderful ‘STORY’ and I can imagine – sad to say - it might truly occur this way should someone recreate the scenario. I'm sharing it as a Wonderful Story because I think it is.
Timeline Photos
Pastor Jeremiah Steepek (pictured) transformed him
13 days ago
Liz Fatima Noor Claim: Fatima Noor was appointed as a special assistant in the Office of the Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security. TRUE Example: [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] Did Oba Read more ... ma appoint Fatima Noor as assistant director of American Citizenship and Immigration? Origins: On 3 July 2014, the University of Memphis announced three of its graduate students, including a woman named Fatima Noor, had landed full-time positions with the Obama administration: Fatima Noor will be a special assistant in the Office of the Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security beginning July 28. Noor majored in psychology with minors in Spanish and international relations. She recently completed a month-long research fellowship in psychology hosted by Carnegie-Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh; her research will be ongoing for this program. Noor was a leader in many honor societies at the U of M. She has done volunteer work with World Relief Memphis and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. The announcement stirred up consternation in some circles because Noor appears to be Muslim: She does not identify her religious affiliation on her LinkedIn profile, but she was photographed wearing Hijab for her profile on the Muslim Media Network. This circumstance prompted the disreputable Before It's News web site to publish an article titled "ALERT! Obama Appointment Fatima Noor Asst Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration! WHAT!" on 31 August 2014. The article quoted directly from the University of Memphis announcement but incorrectly identified Noor's position at USCIS as "assistant director." According to the Memphis Business Journal, the position landed by Noor is one typically filled by graduates of Ivy League schools. Rosie Phillips Bingham, vice president for Student Affairs at the University of Memphis, said of Noor's appointment: The University of Memphis graduates exceptional students who make significant differences in the world. These three students are stellar examples. They competed with students from the country's most elite institutions and they prevailed. More importantly, these three will do a superior job for the Obama administration. Last updated: 11 December 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fatimanoor.asp#WgsVqO927Y8iB2LL.99
Fatima Noor Appointed to Homeland Security by President Obama
www.snopes.com
Was Fatima Noor appointed to a position in Homeland Security by President Obama?
14 days ago
Bob 6. Sharing Chain Letters And Urban Legends Anything that puts unwanted social pressure on people to take action is a bad idea. Likewise, before you share something shocking, do a quick Google search to find out if it’s on Snopes, the urban legends Read more ... website.
10 Habits That Make Everyone Hate You On Social Media
m.fastcompany.com
Your Vaguebooking and constant retweeting may be annoying everyone. Here's what you're doing that might make people click unfollow.
14 days ago
Bob
Snopes NO MORE The Self-proclaimed Debunker Of Urban Legend has been debunked - Tom O'Halloran
tomohalloran.com
TomOHalloran.com is a news, information and opinion site. Our goal is to post, report and analyze stories of interest on a wide range of topics from politics and culture to faith and family. We are located in Longview Texas.
20 days ago
Barbara I almost forgot. Here's this past Tuesday's newspaper column. URBAN LEGENDS AND CYBER FAIRY TALES Have you heard that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? We all have. However, in reality—and I do like to keep it real—w Read more ... hen traveling from one side of our globe to another, the shortest distance for terrestrial travel isn’t a straight line. It’s an arc; unless you’re planning to tunnel through the earth in a straight line. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, caffeine is an addictive drug that creates physical dependence, causes an increase in heart rate, body temperature, urine production and gastric juice secretion. Yikes! Besides coffee, tea also contains caffeine. However, I never thought of caffeine as a drug, per se, but apparently caffeine can raise blood sugar levels, causes tremors, loss of coordination, decreased appetite and postponement of fatigue, not to mention interfering with the depth of sleep. But, don’t think if you give up tea (hot or iced) or coffee you’re off the caffeine hook. Nope. Caffeine’s also found in coca, chocolate candies and many over-the-counter medicines. I might give up my coffee and tea but chocolate? Have to think about that one. Okay, I’m not giving up my coffee and tea either. As an artist one of my favorite mediums is India ink, and like most folks, I assumed it originated in India. I mean, why else would it be called India ink? The fallacies and lies and misconceptions of a lifetime are catching up with me, thanks to a thirst for knowledge and the Internet. India ink, a mixture of soot created from lampblack and gum, actually originated in China. Samuel Pepys, who’s well known for his diary, is credited with being the first to call it India ink in 1665. One mistake leads to more mistakes and eventually down through the ages, the name stuck. By the way, rice paper isn’t made from rice, but instead from the pith of the Chinese rice-paper tree. When growing up as an impressionable and curious child, and before fact-check came along, I believed Biblical teachings declaring that since Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs, that men must have one less rib than women. What a surprise when I found out it’s another fallacy. Apparently it’s an allegory created to explain what priests of old considered the physical, emotional and intellectual attachment between men and women. It had to do with a verse in Genesis about when a man leaves his father and mother that he “shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” Whew! Glad that’s cleared up. I reckon doctors knew this, but I didn’t. Having an additional rib made me feel quite superior to the male of the species, guess now I’ll just have to base the superiority on brains instead. While clearing things up, I’m sure you’ll be happy to learn Mikey didn’t die because Pop Rocks exploded in his stomach. Remember Pop Rocks? They’re fruit-flavored candies that contain trapped carbon dioxide so that when placed in the mouth, the candy dissolves and carbonation causes a fizzing sensation on the tongue and mild popping sounds. Little boys especially love them. Urban legend said Life cereal’s Mikey washed some down with Coca-Cola and they exploded in his tummy and he died. John Gilchrist, aka Mikey, graduated from college in 1991. Pop Rocks are still sold today through Pop Rocks, Inc. and your innards are safe. Facebook is full of urban legends I call Cyber Fairy Tales invented by Cyber Vandals; new ones pop up daily. Since their inception, I’ve depended upon Snopes for confirmation. If it’s too far-fetched to sound real, likely it isn’t. # # #
21 days ago
Larry These are not my words this comes from SNOPES.com Examples: [Collected via email, September 2014] Michael Brown, like Trayvon, was portrayed by the media as a "little black boy," cute little headphones, and his cap and gown photo, gunned down by Read more ... a ruthless police assassin, executed by "whitey." ... First, I have never seen a cop drag a person into their car's driver door to arrest them. ... let us be clear, Michael Brown was a sorry assed, criminal, hoodlum, Nobody wants to say that, but I will. He had a criminal record a mile long, was known for numerous assaults, robberies, including the one you saw with your own eyes, and still refuse to call it a robbery. He was, like so many others, living a life that he thought he was "entitled" to, just for being alive. THE POOR LITTLE TEEN AGER--6 FT. 4 INCH 295# MICHAEL BROWN WAS A HOODLUM The WAPO reported that Mister Brown was college bound and makes it sound like the police officer involved just singled him out for no reason. Luckily the internet filters the news now. Here's some background on Mister Michael Brown. The new Racial poster boy Michael R Brown has felony's pending in Court. Yes, that guy who was on his way to College was arrested and charged with Burglary, Armed criminal action, Assault with the intent to do great bodily harm, and again Armed criminal action. He was scheduled to go to court in Sept. (Now, I thought he was supposed to go to college in Sept? Imagine that!) You can look all this up yourself on Case.net Missouri. Do a search for St. Louis County in 2014; you'll find him ... It seems whenever Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Obama chime in, it winds up being another Tawana Brawley type case. PHONY! ... According to Casenet, this unarmed teenager (Michael Brown) was already charged with: Description: Burglary 1st Degree [Felony B RSMo: 569.160] Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000 OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD Next Charge/Judgment Description: Armed Criminal Action [Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015] Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000 OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD Next Charge/Judgment Description: Assault 1st Degree Serious Physical Injury [Felony A RSMo: 565.050] Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100 OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD Next Charge/Judgment Description: Armed Criminal Action [Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015] Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000 OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST. ANN PD This "unarmed teenager," as the liberal media like to portray Michael Brown, was nothing but a punk hoodlum, who used his size to intimidate others. I would like to know if the teenager who was shot and killed by a police officer in [Ferguson], Missouri had a police record ... Been getting many emails suggesting that. Origins: After Ferguson, Missouri, teenager Mike Brown was shot and killed by a police officer on 9 August 2014, a great deal of information and speculation spread on the internet and in the media about the incident and involved parties. As Brown, who had graduated high school just over a week earlier, was unarmed, public reaction to his death was both intense and polarizing. One of the most frequently repeated claims about Brown circulating in the weeks after he was killed involved his purported prior criminal behavior. Allegations ranged from simple, single-statement claims that Brown had been arrested and/or convicted of an array of crimes to a lengthy list of specific criminal counts with which the teenager had reportedly been charged and/or convicted. As the rumors regarding Mike Brown's arrest record became more varied and extreme, local news outlets began to examine the claims. Brown had turned 18 only three months before his death, making the array of rumors far harder to verify due to the manner in which juvenile records are handled in the state of Missouri. On 3 September 2014, a judge heard several arguments from media outlets hoping to determine whether Brown had been arrested or convicted of any criminal acts prior to his 18th birthday in May 2014. Cynthia Harcourt, the St. Louis County juvenile office's attorney, said the "court of public opinion does not require the release of juvenile records," adding that "simple curiosity" was not an adequate reason to violate the privacy of Brown and his family. Harcourt did provide the largest amount of information regarding Brown's legal history, noting that the nature of the crimes with which Brown had reportedly been involved would not necessarily have been protected by laws that shield minors from publicizing their criminal records: Cynthia Harcourt, a lawyer for the juvenile officer of St. Louis County Family Court, said after the hearing that she could neither confirm nor deny the existence of a juvenile record for Mr. Brown. Missouri state law prohibits the records of most juvenile court proceedings from being released to the public. But she said Mr. Brown had no juvenile cases involving serious felony charges or convictions, including murder, robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. Those felony records would not be required to be confidential and would have been released, but none exist for Mr. Brown, Ms. Harcourt said. Additionally, local news sources confirmed that Mike Brown was not facing any criminal complaints at the time of his death. The list of charges that are cited in the "Example" block above and proffered as documenting Michael Brown's criminal record above appear to have been drawn from a Missouri court search in which someone found a case involving some other Michael Brown and mistakenly assumed that person was the teenager killed in Ferguson. However, that case record (3SL-CR12675-01, ST V MICHAEL R BROWN) referenced someone with a similar but different name (Michael R. Brown vs. Michael Brown, Jr.), who lived in a different Missouri town (Troy vs. Crestwood) and was born in a different year (1997 vs. 1996) than the Michael Brown who was shot in Ferguson. Last updated: 5 September 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/brown.asp#TPFEQH12p0b1qmvt.99
snopes.com: Mike Brown's Arrest Record
www.snopes.com
Did killed Ferguson teen Michael Brown have a lengthy arrest record?
22 days ago
Steve #throwbacktuesday apparently. "This urban legend has been around for years in different forms. People were posting statuses like this back in 2012, and there's even a page on Snopes debunking it."
That 'Copyright' Facebook Status Is Useless And Absurd
www.huffingtonpost.com
Facebook does not own your photos. Facebook does not own the rights to your genius Facebook status updates.
24 days ago
Joan That ‘Copyright’ Facebook Status Is Useless And Absurd. Stop Posting ItFacebook does not own your photos. Facebook does not own the rights to your genius Facebook status updates. If Facebook did own your intellectual property, guess what? Writing Read more ... a status update declaring that the company doesn't own your intellectual property would be completely useless. So please Internet: Stop this madness! As you probably know, many Facebookers are posting a notice claiming that Facebook owns their data, words, photos and videos. The status, widely copied and pasted, then goes on to forbid Facebook from using their stuff. Facebook confirmed that this is a hoax in an email to The Huffington Post on Tuesday. It looks something like this: "There are so many things wrong with this notice, it's hard to know where to start," Derek Bambauer, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law told HuffPost via email on Tuesday. The laws cited don't even make sense, according to Bambauer. "It's not clear what articles L.111, 112, and 113 of the 'code of intellectual property' are - Facebook's [Terms of Service] operate under US law, where copyright is in Title 17 of the US Code," Bambauer said. Everything you do on Facebook is guided by the site's Terms of Service, which is that long body of text you quickly "agree" to when signing up for Facebook. Here's what Facebook's Terms of Service say: "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings." That's it. You own everything you post on Facebook. You do give Facebook "a license to use and display that content" when you post it on the site. Facebook is "using" your profile picture when it shows that picture to people as "someone they might know." That's not the same as giving Facebook the copyright, which would allow them to do whatever they wanted with the photo. You can't change Facebook's Terms of Service with a status update. "You can't unilaterally change those by posting a mashup of law-sounding words on your Timeline, in the same way you can't unilaterally change your terms of employment by posting an announcement on your office door that you'll only work 20 hours a week," Bambauer said. This urban legend, as Bambauer calls it, has been around for years in different forms. People were posting statuses like this back in 2012, and there's even a page on Snopes debunking it. So don't post that status, even if you feel like it "can't hurt." It will make you look silly.By Alexis Kleinman Facebook does not own your photos. Facebook does not own the rights to your genius Facebook status updates. If Facebook did own your intellectual property, guess what? Writing a status update declaring that the company doesn't own your intellectual property would be completely useless. So please Internet: Stop this madness! As you probably know, many Facebookers are posting a notice claiming that Facebook owns their data, words, photos and videos. The status, widely copied and pasted, then goes on to forbid Facebook from using their stuff. Facebook confirmed that this is a hoax in an email to The Huffington Post on Tuesday. It looks something like this: "There are so many things wrong with this notice, it's hard to know where to start," Derek Bambauer, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law told HuffPost via email on Tuesday. The laws cited don't even make sense, according to Bambauer. "It's not clear what articles L.111, 112, and 113 of the 'code of intellectual property' are - Facebook's [Terms of Service] operate under US law, where copyright is in Title 17 of the US Code," Bambauer said. Everything you do on Facebook is guided by the site's Terms of Service, which is that long body of text you quickly "agree" to when signing up for Facebook. Here's what Facebook's Terms of Service say: "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings." That's it. You own everything you post on Facebook. You do give Facebook "a license to use and display that content" when you post it on the site. Facebook is "using" your profile picture when it shows that picture to people as "someone they might know." That's not the same as giving Facebook the copyright, which would allow them to do whatever they wanted with the photo. You can't change Facebook's Terms of Service with a status update. "You can't unilaterally change those by posting a mashup of law-sounding words on your Timeline, in the same way you can't unilaterally change your terms of employment by posting an announcement on your office door that you'll only work 20 hours a week," Bambauer said. This urban legend, as Bambauer calls it, has been around for years in different forms. People were posting statuses like this back in 2012, and there's even a page on Snopes debunking it. So don't post that status, even if you feel like it "can't hurt." It will make you look silly. http://ift.tt/1gB4pon
24 days ago
Daniel
www.snopes.com
snopes.com
24 days ago
Betty E-mail this page E-mail this Search Submit 196 Tumblr 823 Email 31 Stumble 115 Reddit 1M Share 4.8K Tweet 509 Facebook Privacy Notice Claim: Posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall will protect your copyright and privacy rights. Read more ... FALSE Examples: [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Due to the fact that Facebook has chosen to involve software that will allow the theft of my personal information, I state: at this date of November 27, 2014, in response to the new guidelines of Facebook, pursuant to articles L.111, 112 and 113 of the code of intellectual property, I declare that my rights are attached to all my personal data drawings, paintings, photos, video, texts etc.... published on my profile and my page. For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times. Those who read this text can do a copy/paste on their Facebook wall. This will allow them to place themselves under the protection of copyright. By this statement, I tell Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, broadcast, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and or its content. The actions mentioned above also apply to employees, students, agents and or other personnel under the direction of Facebook. The content of my profile contains private information. The violation of my privacy is punishable by law (UCC 1-308 1-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute). Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are invited to publish a notice of this kind, or if they prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you have not published this statement at least once, you tacitly allow the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in the profile update. Origins: Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall are similar to an item which circulated several years ago positing that posting a similar notice on a web site would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy. In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief the use of some simple legal talisman — knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer — will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way. Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an "open capital entity" has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status. Further, the concerns about copyright ownership which these types of notices are intended to address are unfounded. In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced the company was considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, Facebook issued a statement noting: There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more - www.facebook.com/policies. Similarly, ABC News reported: [Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] — unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media. "We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. "Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings." Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] "misleading and not true." He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a "non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything." As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You cannot alter your acceptance of that agreement, nor can you restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement, simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account or citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.) If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options: Decline to sign up for a Facebook account. Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook. Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section. Cancel your Facebook account. (Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.) Last updated: 28 November 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Sources: Ngak, Chenda. "Viral "Facebook Privacy Notice" Is a Hoax." CBSNews.com. 5 June 2012. Stern, Joanna. "Ignore the 'Copyright' Facebook Post." ABC News. 26 November 2012. Sydiongco, David. "Don't Bother Posting the 'Facebook Privacy Notice' That's Spreading Around." Slate. 5 June 2012. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp#8veo6tdLKUeBQajQ.99
Facebook Privacy Notice
www.snopes.com
Will posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall protect your copyright and privacy rights?
25 days ago
GinaHams If you go to the link below you can search for the latest in Scams etc.... snopes it a good way to keep ahead of the Scammers.. http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=Paypal+scams&x=38&y=15&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control Read more ... =1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Search Engine
search.atomz.com
Search engine for the Urban Legends Reference Pages
26 days ago
Linda
Facebook Privacy Notice
www.snopes.com
Will posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall protect your copyright and privacy rights?
26 days ago
Shad "Your interactions with Facebook are governed by an agreement you previously made, that both parties entered into—even if you didn't read it. When you signed up with Facebook, you agreed to its terms of service. If you've been there for a while, yo Read more ... u've even agreed to new terms as they've been updated over the years. That doesn't change because Facebook is a public company, and it doesn't change because you post some dumb crap on your timeline. It changes when Facebook offers new terms, and you accept them either by explicit agreement or your continued presence there. "Facebook is rapidly becoming the new email from old people. The only difference between this and spreading urban legends via email is that you're hitting share instead of forward. Just as with any email that urges you to forward it to 100 of your closest friends, any scary Facebook status update you see that begs you to repost it to your timeline is almost certainly completely bogus. "Come on, people. We already did this dance once before. Do we really have to start bookmarking Snopes again?"
Your Facebook "Privacy Notice" Is Unenforceable Nonsense
gizmodo.com
If you have a Facebook account, you've likely seen your dull friends post some version of a "privacy notice" there recently. The idea is that posting it as your status will somehow prevent Facebook from, well, doing the things Facebook does with your Read more ... information. It's nonsense. Don't be that person.
26 days ago
Carlynne Snopes to the rescue - I encourage all of you to subscribe to Snopes = an independent way to check out urban legends and email hoaxes: Clydesdales were not being retired by the brand Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/clydesdales.a Read more ... sp#FLYWPGurm5VJlHkv.99
Don
www.snopes.com
Is Budweiser ditching their famous Clydesdale ads in order to appeal to young beer drinkers?
26 days ago
Mike
BDTN: Snopes NO MORE The Self-proclaimed Debunker Of Urban Legend has been debunked
breakingdownthnews.blogspot.com
Snopes NO MORE The Self-proclaimed Debunker Of Urban Legend has been debunked
27 days ago
Connie To all my family and friends reposting this article Please read this: Facebook Privacy Notice Claim: Posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall will protect your copyright and privacy rights. FALSE Examples: [Collected via e-mail, Novembe Read more ... r 2014] Due to the fact that Facebook has chosen to involve software that will allow the theft of my personal information, I state: at this date of November 27, 2014, in response to the new guidelines of Facebook, pursuant to articles L.111, 112 and 113 of the code of intellectual property, I declare that my rights are attached to all my personal data drawings, paintings, photos, video, texts etc.... published on my profile and my page. For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times. Those who read this text can do a copy/paste on their Facebook wall. This will allow them to place themselves under the protection of copyright. By this statement, I tell Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, broadcast, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and or its content. The actions mentioned above also apply to employees, students, agents and or other personnel under the direction of Facebook. The content of my profile contains private information. The violation of my privacy is punishable by law (UCC 1-308 1-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute). Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are invited to publish a notice of this kind, or if they prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you have not published this statement at least once, you tacitly allow the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in the profile update. Origins: Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall are similar to an item which circulated several years ago positing that posting a similar notice on a web site would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy. In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief the use of some simple legal talisman — knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer — will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way. Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an "open capital entity" has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status. Further, the concerns about copyright ownership which these types of notices are intended to address are unfounded. In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced the company was considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, Facebook issued a statement noting: There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more - www.facebook.com/policies. Similarly, ABC News reported: [Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] — unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media. "We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. "Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings." Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] "misleading and not true." He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a "non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything." As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You cannot alter your acceptance of that agreement, nor can you restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement, simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account or citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.) If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options: Decline to sign up for a Facebook account. Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook. Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section. Cancel your Facebook account. (Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.) Last updated: 28 November 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Sources: Ngak, Chenda. "Viral "Facebook Privacy Notice" Is a Hoax." CBSNews.com. 5 June 2012. Stern, Joanna. "Ignore the 'Copyright' Facebook Post." ABC News. 26 November 2012. Sydiongco, David. "Don't Bother Posting the 'Facebook Privacy Notice' That's Spreading Around." Slate. 5 June 2012. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp#BabJ4wqQz4sxS81z.99
Facebook Policies | Facebook
www.facebook.com
Everything you need to know about Facebook policies, all in one place.
27 days ago
Ilir FUTURE TENSE THE CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO THE FUTURE JUNE 5 2012 12:13 PM Don't Bother Posting the "Facebook Privacy Notice" That's Spreading Around By David Sydiongco Just because Facebook has gone public does not mean its user terms and conditions have c Read more ... hanged. Just because Facebook has gone public does not mean its user terms and conditions have changed. Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/GettyImages Since late last month, Facebook users have been posting a legal-sounding “privacy notice.” By putting the notice on their timelines, they hope, they will become exempt from the terms and conditions of Facebook’s “Data Use Policy,” which users agree to upon initially signing up. Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth. As the urban-legend-debunking site Snopes explains, “[T]he basic premise is false.” Advertisement “We have noticed this recent status update that is being widely shared implying the ownership of your Facebook content has recently changed,” Alex Kirschner, a member of Faceook’s PR team, told me. “This is not true and has never been the case.” While there are some variations, most of the warnings look like this: For those of you who do not understand the reasoning behind this posting, Facebook is now a publicly traded entity. Unless you state otherwise, anyone can infringe on your right to privacy once you post to this site. It is recommended that you and other members post a similar notice as this, or you may copy and paste this version. If you do not post such a statement once, then you are indirectly ...allowing public use of items such as your photos and the information contained in your status updates. PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee, agent, student or any personnel under your direction or control. The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJU
27 days ago
Louis Claim: Posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall will protect your copyright and privacy rights. FALSE Examples: [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Due to the fact that Facebook has chosen to involve software that will allow the th Read more ... eft of my personal information, I state: at this date of November 27, 2014, in response to the new guidelines of Facebook, pursuant to articles L.111, 112 and 113 of the code of intellectual property, I declare that my rights are attached to all my personal data drawings, paintings, photos, video, texts etc.... published on my profile and my page. For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times. Those who read this text can do a copy/paste on their Facebook wall. This will allow them to place themselves under the protection of copyright. By this statement, I tell Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, broadcast, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and or its content. The actions mentioned above also apply to employees, students, agents and or other personnel under the direction of Facebook. The content of my profile contains private information. The violation of my privacy is punishable by law (UCC 1-308 1-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute). Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are invited to publish a notice of this kind, or if they prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you have not published this statement at least once, you tacitly allow the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in the profile update. Origins: Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall are similar to an item which circulated several years ago positing that posting a similar notice on a web site would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy. In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief that the use of some simple legal talisman — knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer — will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way. Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, the fact that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an "open capital entity" has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status. Further, the concerns about copyright ownership which these types of notices are intended to address are unfounded. In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced the company was considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, Facebook issued a statement noting: There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more - www.facebook.com/policies. Similarly, ABC News reported: [Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] — unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media. "We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. "Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings." Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] "misleading and not true." He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a "non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything." As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You cannot alter your acceptance of that agreement, nor can you restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement, simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account or citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.) If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options: Decline to sign up for a Facebook account. Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook. Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section. Cancel your Facebook account. (Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.) Last updated: 28 November 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp#VHcJEPi1Uz6VEis6.99
Facebook Policies | Facebook
www.facebook.com
Everything you need to know about Facebook policies, all in one place.
27 days ago
Johanna Apparently posting that text regarding Facebook's privacy was a hoax. Claim: Posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall will protect your copyright and privacy rights. FALSE Examples: [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Due to the Read more ... fact that Facebook has chosen to involve software that will allow the theft of my personal information, I state: at this date of November 27, 2014, in response to the new guidelines of Facebook, pursuant to articles L.111, 112 and 113 of the code of intellectual property, I declare that my rights are attached to all my personal data drawings, paintings, photos, video, texts etc.... published on my profile and my page. For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times. Those who read this text can do a copy/paste on their Facebook wall. This will allow them to place themselves under the protection of copyright. By this statement, I tell Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, broadcast, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and or its content. The actions mentioned above also apply to employees, students, agents and or other personnel under the direction of Facebook. The content of my profile contains private information. The violation of my privacy is punishable by law (UCC 1-308 1-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute). Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are invited to publish a notice of this kind, or if they prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you have not published this statement at least once, you tacitly allow the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in the profile update. Origins: Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall are similar to an item which circulated several years ago positing that posting a similar notice on a web site would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy. In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief that the use of some simple legal talisman — knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer — will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way. Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, the fact that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an "open capital entity" has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status. Further, the concerns about copyright ownership which these types of notices are intended to address are unfounded. In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced the company was considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, Facebook issued a statement noting: There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more - www.facebook.com/policies. Similarly, ABC News reported: [Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] — unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media. "We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. "Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings." Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] "misleading and not true." He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a "non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything." As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You cannot alter your acceptance of that agreement, nor can you restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement, simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account or citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.) If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options: Decline to sign up for a Facebook account. Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook. Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section. Cancel your Facebook account. (Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.) Last updated: 28 November 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp#H38G1ZO1WdWqxl4J.99
Facebook Privacy Notice
www.snopes.com
Will posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall protect your copyright and privacy rights?
27 days ago
Kevin Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall are similar to an item which circulated several years ago positing that posting a similar notice on a web site would pro Read more ... tect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy. In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief that the use of some simple legal talisman — knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer — will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way. Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, the fact that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an "open capital entity" has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status. Further, the concerns about copyright ownership which these types of notices are intended to address are unfounded. In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced the company was considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, Facebook issued a statement noting: There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more - www.facebook.com/policies. Similarly, ABC News reported: [Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] — unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media. "We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. "Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings." Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] "misleading and not true." He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a "non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything." As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You cannot alter your acceptance of that agreement, nor can you restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement, simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account or citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.) If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options: • Decline to sign up for a Facebook account. • Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook. • Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section. • Cancel your Facebook account. (Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.) Last updated: 28 November 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp#uSjFth2GeIoz4v2F.99
Facebook Policies | Facebook
www.facebook.com
Everything you need to know about Facebook policies, all in one place.
28 days ago
Gail BLACK FRIDAY Origins: "Black Friday" is the (originally derisive, now mainstream) term for the phenomenon that takes place in the U.S. on the day after Thanksgiving Thursday, when millions of consumers who get the day off from work or school crowd Read more ... into stores for what is traditionally considered the beginning of the Christmas shopping season. The origins of the term "Black Friday" have become somewhat obscured in the mists of time, however, leading people to invent fanciful explanations for how that phrase became attached to the day after Thanksgiving. The example reproduced above posits the term started with a tradition of slaveowners or slave traders using that day as an opportunity for selling their wares. The use of "Black Friday" as a descriptor for the day after Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the selling of slaves, though, and the term didn't originate until nearly a century after the practice of slavery was abolished in the U.S. The earliest known use of "Black Friday" in such a context stems from 1951 and referred to the practice of workers calling in sick on the day after Thanksgiving in order to have four consecutive days off (because that day was not yet commonly offered as a paid day off by employers): WHAT TO DO ABOUT "FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING" "Friday-after-Thanksgiving-itis" is a disease second only to the bubonic plague in its effects. At least that's the feeling of those who have to get production out, when the "Black Friday" comes along. The shop may be half empty, but every absentee was sick — and can prove it. What to do? Many companies have tried the standard device of denying Thanksgiving Day pay to employees absent the day before and after the holiday. Trouble is, you can't deny pay to those legitimately ill. But what's legitimate? Tough to decide these days of often miraculously easy doctors' certificates. Glenn L. Martin, Baltimore aircraft manufacturer has another solution: When you decide you want to sweeten up the holiday kitty, pick Black Friday to add to the list. That's just what Martin has done. Friday after Thanksgiving is the company's seventh paid holiday. We're not suggesting more paid holidays just to get out of a hole. But, if you can make a good trade in bargaining, there are lots of worse things than having a holiday on a day that was half holiday anyway. Shouldn't cost too much for that reason, either. By 1961 the term "Black Friday" (and "Black Saturday" as well) was being commonly used in a derisive sense by Philadelphia police, who had to deal with the mayhem and headaches caused by all the extra pedestrian and vehicular traffic created by hordes of shoppers heading for the city's downtown stores on the two days after Thanksgiving: For downtown merchants throughout the nation, the biggest shopping days normally are the two following Thanksgiving Day. Resulting traffic jams are an irksome problem to the police and, in Philadelphia, it became customary for officers to refer to the post-Thanksgiving days as Black Friday and Black Saturday. In a 1994 article, former Philadelphia Bulletin reporter Joseph P. Barrett recalled how he took part in popularizing the term "Black Friday" throughout Philadelphia in the early 1960s, from which it eventually spread into nationwide usage: The term "Black Friday" came out of the old Philadelphia Police Department's traffic squad. The cops used it to describe the worst traffic jams which annually occurred in Center City on the Friday after Thanksgiving. It was the day that Santa Claus took his chair in the department stores and every kid in the city wanted to see him. It was the first day of the Christmas shopping season. Schools were closed. Late in the day, out-of-town visitors began arriving for the Army-Navy football game. Every "Black Friday," no traffic policeman was permitted to take the day off. The division was placed on 12 hours of duty, and even the police band was ordered to Center City. It was not unusual to see a trombone player directing traffic. Two officers were assigned to intersections along Market Street to control the throngs of pedestrians. The department also placed police officers outside parking garages because the "lot filled" signs failed to deter motorists from lining up on the curb lane outside the garage. This reduced street size from two lanes to one. This caused traffic to back up and block traffic at the next intersection. This caused massive gridlock. In 1959, the old Evening Bulletin assigned me to police administration, working out of City Hall. Nathan Kleger was the police reporter who covered Center City for the Bulletin. In the early 1960s, Kleger and I put together a front-page story for Thanksgiving and we appropriated the police term "Black Friday" to describe the terrible traffic conditions. [W]e used it year after year. Then television picked it up. One popular alternative explanation for the origins of "Black Friday" is that it is the day on which retailers finally began to show a profit for the year (in accounting terms, moving from being "in the red" to "in the black") after operating at an overall loss from January through mid-November. However, this explanation didn't take hold until about the early 1980s, long after Philadelphia police had been using the term in reference to traffic issues. Last updated: 24 November 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/holidays/thanksgiving/blackfriday.asp#qlspfx4XbwZeqxqc.99
snopes.com: How Did 'Black Friday' Get Its Name?
www.snopes.com
Did the term 'Black Friday' originate with the practice of selling off slaves on the day after Thanksgiving?
29 days ago
Robert Barack Obama — Editor of the Harvard Law Review — Has No Law License? I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a la Read more ... wyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel — and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website: She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. Here's an illustration: I'm a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license — simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can't say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have it's 1993 records online. But when I searched for "Obama", I found this: "Voluntarily retired" — what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesn’t seem to give a crap about his law license. Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady — who don't actually have licenses to practice law. There's more to this story, I'm sure. I'll let you know when I find it. Origins: The text quoted above is just one example of several similar items that have been circulated during or since the 2008 U.S. presidential election, all suggesting (without evidence) that Barack and Michelle Obama, both of whom obtained licenses to practice law in Illinois, were forced to give up those licenses in order to avoid having them revoked through disciplinary actions or criminal prosecution. In fact, neither of the Obamas gave up their law licenses because they were facing disciplinary actions or criminal charges; such claims are based on misreadings of information about license status and erroneous interpretations and assumptions about such information, as detailed below: I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel — and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. This lead-in is wrong on two counts: Michelle Obama does in fact have a license to practice law in Illinois (it is currently on inactive status), and she did not hold a position as legal counsel with the University of Chicago Hospitals (she worked at that institution as Executive Director for Community Affairs and then Vice President for Community and External Affairs). None of her job duties at the University of Chicago Hospitals required her to have an active law license. She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. This passage is also wrong: Michelle Obama did not "voluntarily surrender" her law license; she voluntarily requested that her license be placed on "inactive" status. The difference is crucial: a lawyer who has surrendered his law license has given it up and therefore no longer has a license; a lawyer who has gone on inactive status still holds a valid law license but is not currently engaged in any professional activities that require it to be active. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license — simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. A lawyer's holding active status can entail a number of obligations (financial and otherwise): paying bar association fees, carrying malpractice insurance, taking continuing legal education classes, etc. Therefore, it is not uncommon for lawyers who are not in practice (i.e., do not appear in court or counsel clients) and do not expect to return to practice in the near future to request that their licenses be placed on inactive status in order to avoid these ongoing obligations. Reactivating an inactive law license is a fairly easy procedure, as noted in the Volokh group blog for law professors: The fact that someone who doesn't actually practice law, and is unlikely to practice law, voluntarily retires is hardly a sinister signal: It costs money to be a member of the bar, and if you're not going to practice, it may make sense to retire. Nor does this somehow undermine claims that he's a lawyer; a retired lawyer is still commonly called a lawyer — as an indication of what he has studied, and his general professional field — even if he is no longer a member of the bar. The bar record says that [Michelle Obama] is "Voluntarily inactive." This is even more common for lawyers who don't need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don't appear in court or counsel clients other than employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes, unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived. The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it's pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that. The following passage includes the erroneous implication that Barack Obama gave up his law license to avoid disciplinary action: "Voluntarily retired" — what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This is incorrect: Barack Obama did not "surrender" his law license. Like Michelle, Barack Obama had no need for an active law license for the work in which he was engaged, so in February 2007 (after announcing his candidacy for the presidency) he chose to have his law license placed on “voluntarily inactive” status, and after becoming president he opted to change his status to “voluntarily retired.” Neither of the Obamas was irrevocably stripped of their law licenses through the action of "surrendering" them. James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, affirmed that the Obamas were "never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings," and the Illinois State Bar Association continues to list Barack and Michelle Obama as Honorary Members of that organization. Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. Not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama's licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings, and the elapsed time for searches we performed on their information was comparable to that for searches on information about other names in the Illinois ARDC database. (The "Malpractice Insurance" section of Michelle Obama's license information which included a notation about her being on "court ordered inactive status" is not, as commonly misinterpreted, an indication of any wrongdoing on her part. That terminology was used simply because prior to the end of 1999, the Illinois ARDC rules required "a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer's preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.") So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady — who don't actually have licenses to practice law. This is hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas holds a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady is a position that requires one. It's also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the "first Lawyer President and First Lady," as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former's election to the presidency. Last updated: 8 March 2013 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.
29 days ago
Russell #Truth Stop believing everything that somebody posts on the Internet. Research and get an understanding for yourself!
Mobile Uploads
I wasn't going to touch base on this but I see thi
1 month ago
Anthony
Mobile Uploads
I wasn't going to touch base on this but I see thi
1 month ago
Myra A friend sent me this Snopes update about the recent "Quaranturkey" news that has been popping up all over the Internet and Facebook: http://www.snopes.com/medical/ebola/turkey.asp Apparently the story is one of those "Internet Urban Legends & Myth Read more ... s" that go viral, so I wanted to share. Hope everyone has a great Monday!
snopes.com: Texas Turkey Farm Contaminated with Ebola, Over 250,000 Holiday Turkeys Infected
www.snopes.com
Have hundreds of thousands of Thanksgiving turkeys been contaminated with Ebola?
1 month ago
Jeff
Christopher S. Lawton
COMMUNIST RULES FOR REVOLUTION (Captured at Dusseldorf in May 1919 by Allied Forces) – see snopes.com Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness. By specious argument Read more ... cause the breakdown of old moral virtues; honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders. (L.A. riots were just a coincidence, Ferguson? … Of course!) Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. (Racial differences?) Get people’s minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays, and other trivialities. Get control of all means of publicity. (Media) Destroy the people’s faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy (disgrace). Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscation and leaving the population helpless. According to snopes.com the ‘document’ is a fake. However, the snopes site doesn’t explain why the document is a fake so I’ll take their well meaning assertions with a grain of salt. They make the case that there was no record of this document before it appeared in 1946. From the Urban Legends site: The earliest known publication of these rules was in the periodical Moral Re-Armament in February 1946, and circulation of the list really took off after Florida state attorney George A. Brautigam endorsed them as true in 1954. If this document is a fabrication, who can disagree that the mentioned goals seem to have been achieved or strived for in our current western societies? Communism, known under different terms like ‘the Fabians’ in London, existed prior to 1919 so it is not beyond the realm of possiblity that is document could be authentic. The rabble that Rothschild and buddies paid for to start the communist revolution in Russia were working to a script even though they were not aware of it. It was called the Communist Manifesto. In the early ’60′s during the days of the “former” Soviet Union, Russian Premier Nikita Kruschev pounded his shoe on the podium of the United Nations and shouted to the West, “We will bury you!” Fearing an invasion from the Reds, America proceeded to build the most awesome military machine in history. Unfortunately, we forgot to guard our political homefront from being taken over by socialist – communist – liberal activists who would gain office and destroy American law by process of gradually installing the Communist agenda within our legal system and separate branches of government. The Communist program from the start has been one which sees their revolution of 1917 successful only upon total domination of the world. (See Brain Washing, A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics) Americans, being the most naive people among the nations, now believe that Communism is dead because the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain have been removed. The ironic truth is that Communism has just switched names to become more “politically correct”. Today it is called international democracy. The reason that the Berlin Wall came crashing down is not because Communism is dead but because they have achieved the planned agenda to communize the West, including America. Washington D.C. has indeed become part of the New World Order of atheist governments. With the last vestiges of Christian law having been removed from “American government” over the last twenty years, there is no longer a threat of resistance against world Communism. In reality, “American government” became part of the Iron Curtain, thus there was no more need for the likes of a Berlin Wall. Once again, in their foolishness, the American public has believed the lies of their “leaders” who applaud “the fall of Communism”, while they have sold out the country to anti-Christian, anti-American statutes and regulations on the federal, state, and local levels. Posted below is a comparison of the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart of each of the planks, The American people have truly been “buried in Communism” by their own politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties
1 month ago
Carmen Update of Anne Coulter story. Please read! Ann Coulter Claim: Ann Coulter refused to stay aboard an airplane piloted by a black woman. FALSE Example: [Collected via e-mail, January 2013] A recent item re Ann Coulter refusing to board Read more ... an airplane because the pilot was black has gone viral on Facebook and Twitter. Origins: On 29 January 2013, the Daily Currant published an article about conservative commentator Ann Coulter's refusing to stay on board a commercial airline flight because the aircraft was piloted by a black woman: Conservative commentator and author Ann Coulter refused to stay on board a Miami to New York commercial airline flight today after learning the pilot was a woman of African-American descent. According to witness reports Coulter was concerned the experienced, decorated pilot in question may have gained her position as a result of affirmative action and wasn't fully qualified to fly. The incident began when Coulter boarded the American Airlines flight and took up her first class seat. After a trip to the bathroom, she noticed the pilot was a black woman and became immediately distraught. According to passengers, at that point Coulter stood at the front of the cabin and began screaming her concerns to the entire flight as they finished boarding. "Aw come on people, a black woman flying a plane? You know she got that job through affirmative action. Am I the only one worried about this? I mean hello? Our lives are at stake here ..." By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered it mistaking it for a genuine news article. However, that article was just a bit of political humor which satirized the viewpoints expressed in Coulter's books and newspaper columns. As noted in the Daily Currant's "About" page, that web site deals strictly in satire: The Daily Currant is an English language online satirical newspaper that covers global politics, business, technology, entertainment, science, health and media. Q. Are your newstories real? A. No. Our stories are purely fictional. However they are meant to address real-world issues through satire and often refer and link to real events happening in the world Last updated: 30 January 2013 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/coulter.asp#ALUqOHePw1YAYGfj.99
snopes.com: Ann Coulter Refuses to Board Airplane With Black Pilot
www.snopes.com
Ann Coulter refused to stay aboard an airplane piloted by a black woman?
1 month ago
Megan Subject: costly area code I just got the call. Just a reminder, because I received a call from 876-895-5876 a Jamaican cell phone claiming I won a Publishers Clearing House prize. I just hung up on the person Costly NEW AREA CODE WATCH OUT NEW ARE Read more ... A CODE Costly NEW AREA CODE: READ AND PASS ALONG 809 and 876 Area Code We actually received a call last week from the 809 area code. The woman said 'Hey, this is Karen. Sorry I missed you- get back to us quickly. I have something important to tell you.' Then she repeated a phone number beginning with 809 We did not respond. Then this week, we received the following e-mail: Do Not DIAL AREA CODE 809, 284, AND 876 from the U.S. or Canada . THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US BY AT&T. DON'T EVER DIAL AREA CODE 809 or 876 This one is being distributed all over the US ... This is pretty scary, especially given the way they try to get you to call. Be sure you read this and pass it on. They get you to call by telling you that it is information about a family member who has been ill or to tell you someone has been arrested, died, or to let you know you have won a wonderful prize, etc. In each case, you are told to call the 809 or 876 number right away. Since there are so many new area codes these days, people unknowingly return these calls. If you call from the U.S. or Canada , you will apparently be charged a minimum of $2425 per-minute. And you'll also get a long recorded message. The point is, they will try to keep you on the phone as long as possible to increase the charges. WHY IT WORKS: The 809 area code is located in the Dominican Republic. The 876 area code is located in the Jamaica The charges afterward can become a real nightmare. That’s because you did actually make the call. If you complain, both your local phone company and your long distance carrier will not want to get involved and will most likely tell you that they are simply providing the billing for the foreign company. You’ll end up dealing with a foreign company that argues they have done nothing wrong. Please forward this entire message to your friends, family and colleagues to help them become aware of this scam Subject: costly area code I just got the call. Just a reminder, because I received a call from 876-895-5876 a Jamaican cell phone claiming I won a Publishers Clearing House prize. I just hung up on the a-hole. Costly NEW AREA CODE WATCH OUT NEW AREA CODE Costly NEW AREA CODE: READ AND PASS ALONG 809 and 876 Area Code We actually received a call last week from the 809 area code. The woman said 'Hey, this is Karen. Sorry I missed you- get back to us quickly. I have something important to tell you.' Then she repeated a phone number beginning with 809 We did not respond. Then this week, we received the following e-mail: Do Not DIAL AREA CODE 809, 284, AND 876 from the U.S. or Canada . THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US BY AT&T. DON'T EVER DIAL AREA CODE 809 or 876 This one is being distributed all over the US ... This is pretty scary, especially given the way they try to get you to call. Be sure you read this and pass it on. They get you to call by telling you that it is information about a family member who has been ill or to tell you someone has been arrested, died, or to let you know you have won a wonderful prize, etc. In each case, you are told to call the 809 or 876 number right away. Since there are so many new area codes these days, people unknowingly return these calls. If you call from the U.S. or Canada , you will apparently be charged a minimum of $2425 per-minute. And you'll also get a long recorded message. The point is, they will try to keep you on the phone as long as possible to increase the charges. WHY IT WORKS: The 809 area code is located in the Dominican Republic. The 876 area code is located in the Jamaica The charges afterward can become a real nightmare. That’s because you did actually make the call. If you complain, both your local phone company and your long distance carrier will not want to get involved and will most likely tell you that they are simply providing the billing for the foreign company. You’ll end up dealing with a foreign company that argues they have done nothing wrong. Please forward this entire message to your friends, family and colleagues to help them become aware of this scam. AT&T VERIFIES IT'S TRUE:http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=6045 SNOPES VERIFIES IT'S TRUE:http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=area+code+809&x=26&y=15&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Search Engine
search.atomz.com
Search engine for the Urban Legends Reference Pages
1 month ago
Michael
Ultra-Efficient VW XL1: Now An Urban Legend, Debunked By Snopes
www.greencarreports.com
Ah, conspiracy theories and urban legends. They lure us in with the promise of dark plots and amazing events--even as our rational minds suggest they're likely not true. Now the ultra-efficient Volkswagen XL1 economy car, the highly aerodynamic two-s Read more ... eat diesel plug-in hybrid we drove last fall, has.…
1 month ago
Trudy URBAN LEGEND, ACCORDING TO SNOPES!
Timeline Photos
Keep sharing https://www.facebook.com/top10homere
1 month ago
Joshua Somebody is freaking out about a prior "article" that I posted. It had some truth to it! And history does have a way of repeating itself! See Tesla in New Jersey! So I will post this opposite article! http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091531_ Read more ... ultra-efficient-vw-xl1-now-an-urban-legend-debunked-by-snopes
Ultra-Efficient VW XL1: Now An Urban Legend, Debunked By Snopes
www.greencarreports.com
Ah, conspiracy theories and urban legends. They lure us in with the promise of dark plots and amazing events--even as our rational minds suggest they're likely not true. Now the ultra-efficient Volkswagen XL1 economy car, the highly aerodynamic two-s Read more ... eat diesel plug-in hybrid we drove last fall, has.…
1 month ago
Tineska Macy's Gift Card Scam Claim: Macy's is giving out $200 gift cards to users who follow three simple steps on Facebook. FALSE Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Macy's has a giveaway of $200 on Facebook. Is it legitimate? Origins: Read more ... In November 2014 a popular survey scam targeting Facebook users and major retailers emerged with a new variation, this time promising a $200 Macy's gift card for users who completed three short steps after clicking a link on the social network. The $200 Macy's gift card link was virtually identical to prior scams dangling the lure of $200 Costco gift card, $100 Kohl's gift cards, and $200 Kroger gift cards. In all the scams, users were redirected to a page which appeared to be both legitimately branded by the named retailer and nearly identical to Facebook's pop-up "like and share" functionality. However, the prompts were phony, associated with neither Facebook nor the referenced big-name retailers. On 10 November 2014, the official Macy's Facebook page was deluged with queries about this purported giveaway. The brand's social media managers responded, confirming the Macy's $200 gift card offer was fake and all legitimate contests were run through Macy's official page: Currently, we are not running any giveaways. Any official Macy's contests are shared by us, through our official Facebook page and other social channels. Thank you again for asking! -Chris at Macy's As noted in an earlier Facebook scam giveaway post, the Better Business Bureau offered three tips to avoid similar scams on social networks: Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. The bulk of big giveaways from stores such as Macy's are conducted through the brand's official social media channels and rarely require users to provide personal information. Chances are if you've been redirected off an official Facebook page for any given brand, the giveaway claim is not on the up and up. Last updated: 10 November 2014 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes a Read more at http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/macys.asp#5JdODfqw5kmuUhYQ.99
1 month ago
Susan Home --> Politics --> Sexuality --> Reynolds Rap Reynolds Rap Claim: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate. S Read more ... tatus: True. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Jessie Jackson has added former Chicago democratic congressman Mel Reynolds to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton's last-minute forgiveness spree. Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud & lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious; however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer. This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate. His new job? Youth counselor. Origins: We can't say with absolute certainty that what's described above is "a first in American politics," since the sexual peccadilloes of American politicians were not always as widely publicized as they are now, but the gist of the piece is true (although it originally circulated back in 2001, so it now references events that occurred several years ago and not ones that happened just recently): 1995-1997: President Bill Clinton's sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky, then a 21-year-old unpaid White House intern working in the office of Leon Panetta, Clinton's Chief of Staff, hardly need recounting to anyone who hasn't spent the last eight years on Mars. January 2001: The National Enquirer revealed that Jesse Jackson had been carrying on a four-year affair with Karin L. Stanford, a 39-year-old former aide with his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition staff, and that Jackson had fathered the child Stanford bore in May 1999. (Jackson has been married since 1963.) January 2001: Just before leaving office, President Clinton (at the urging of Jesse Jackson, among others) commuted the sentence of former Illinois congressman Mel Reynolds, who had spent 30 months in a state prison for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and was serving a five-year sentence in federal prison for lying to obtain loans and illegally diverting campaign money for personal use. January 2001: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that former congressman Mel Reynolds would be working as the community development director of Salem Baptist Church in south-side Chicago, and as a consultant for Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, trying to decrease the number of young African-Americans going to prison. (Reynolds' position would be more accurately characterized as that of an advisor on prison reform rather than a "Youth counselor," however.) Last updated: 15 August 2005 Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com. This material may not be reproduced without permission. snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com. Sources: Dodge, Susan. "Reynolds Finds Work with S. Side Church." Chicago Sun-Times. 29 January 2001 (p. 5). Page, Susan. "Who Gets a Pardon? It Depends on Who Asks." USA Today. 20 March 2001 (p. A7). Page, Susan and Mimi Hall. "Pardon Drama Casts Wide Net." USA Today. 23 Feburary 2001 (p. A7). Sneed, Michael. "Reynolds Might Be Really Enjoying the Ride." Chicago Sun-Times. 25 February 2001 (p. 12). Associated Press. "Celeb Pardon Push." [New York] Newsday. 9 March 2001 (p. A5). Chicago Sun-Times. "Farrakhan Back from the Brink." 26 February 2001 (p. 9).
snopes.com
snopes.com
snopes.com
1 month ago
Dale SAFETY/HEALTH. Recently got an email recommending egg white for burns. According to Snopes and others it's an unsafe urban legend, whatever good stuff an egg contains. An ABC approach to first-degree burns, the only level of severity a nonprofession Read more ... al should even attempt to minister to, seems to emerge. A. Any burn more severe than first degree needs professional attention, period. B. Egg white is said to risk salmonella infection. C. A first-degree burn needs COOL RUNNING WATER, from a faucet or vessel, or immersion in cool water, for no less than five (5) minutes, NOT MERELY ICE. Once the burning has been stopped (the main objective) and the wound dried, an ointment or oil, e.g., aloe vera can be applied. Probably old news to most, but just in case. Any verifiable correction to the above would be appreciated
1 month ago
Previous page >>