List of Internet Hoaxes Involving Companies

Contents: 

Jim Neugent's letter to ABC

NOTE:  THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION CAME TO ME DIRECTLY FROM JIM NEUGENT HIMSELF.

In 1999, Mr. Jim Neugent DID indeed write a letter to ABC protesting the positive depiction of gays in the TV show, "The Practice".  Yes, he did receive a nasty reply.  However, there IS more to this story. The reply Mr. Neugent received was NOT from executives at ABC.  Mr. Neugent's emailed letter went to the webmaster's email address.  An employee in the webmaster's office created the nasty reply. After this message spread like wildfire throughout the net, ABC found out about it through the tons of irate mail they received, and found out who had sent the reply.  To give ABC some small credit, they did fire the person who sent the message and did, eventually, send an apologetic letter to Mr. Neugent. 

Mr. Neugent, believing (with good reason) that the inflammatory reply had been received from ABC, sent the message on to 10 or 12 of his friends.  The message then took on a life of its own.  According to Mr. Neugent, later versions added even more inflammatory language to the reply.  The original reply is shown below.  The later additions are shown with brackets.  I'm not sure why someone felt the need to embellish the message.  It was certainly bad enough on its own.

After Mr. Neugent's letter began circulating on the web, ABC was besieged with email regarding the awful message he had received.  ABC began sending out a generic apology to all who wrote.  According to Mr. Neugent, he also sent a copy to the ABC affiliate station in Little Rock, Arkansas.  He believes that the station must have contacted ABC directly, because a few days later, he received a letter of apology from Daren Benzi of ABC.  While the letter did contain an apology, Mr. Benzi continued to defend ABC's programming.  This letter is also shown below.  

After receiving the information that the writer had been fired and the apology, Mr. Neugent tried to get another email message into circulation with this corrected info, but to no avail.  No one, it seems, was interested. 

Message as it now being circulated on the web.  Brackets show additions by unknown source to original letter.

I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program called "THE PRACTICE."  One of the lawyer's mother's decided she was gay and wanted her son to go to court to help her get a marriage license to marry her "partner."  I sent the following letter to ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply. . . but I did get one.  My original message was:

ABC is obsessed (or should I say abscessed) the subject of homosexuality.  I will no longer watch any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK.  THE PRACTICE can be a fairly good show but last night's program was so typical of your agenda.  You picked the "dufus" of the office to be the one who was against the idea of his mother being gay and made him look like a whiner because he had convictions.  This type of mentality calls people like me a "gay basher."  Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) to see what the apostle Paul had to say about it.  He and God and Jesus were all "gay bashers."  What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel. . . is that an alternative lifestyle?  (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)  Jim Neugent

Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line Webmaster:

How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the Declaration of Independence (what our nation is built on) where it says "All Men are Created Equal" and try treating them that way for a change?  Or better yet, try thinking for  yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your [lame]* crutch for your existence.  [You are in the minority in this country and your boycott will not affect us or our freedom of expression.]*

*later additions to the Webmaster employee's original message to Mr. Neugent.

My second response to ABC:

Thanks for your reply.  Evidently, I hit a nerve from your harsh reply.  I will share it with all with whom I come in  contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns, and. . . I will be praying for you.

Here is the rest of the story: 

ABC's generic reply to complainants:

I would like to send out this apology on behalf of one of our ex-freelancers that worked with us in the Webmaster Department.  An email was sent out in response to Jim Neugent's mail regarding his feeling offense towards an episode of "The Practice."  This person's response was by no means the views shared by this organization, but of a personal opinion, and should not have been sent out.

The sole purpose of the Webmaster is to fix any problems that occur on the website and to help our users with any technical difficulties that they may run into while using the site.  It is, by no means, to be used as a medium to express one's own personal opinions.

Again, our Webmaster Division wished to apologize for any misgivings that this ex-freelancer may have caused and thanks you for bringing this concern to our attention.

ABC Webmaster Division

Reply to Mr. Neugent from Daren A. Benzi, ABC - April 14, 1999

Dear Mr. Neugent:

We apologize for the email message that was sent to you with comments that reflect neither the view of ABC nor of its executives.  Viewer mail is traditionally handled by our Audience Information department for responses.

Your message was inappropriately handled by a programmer from ABC.com.  I want to assure you that the response that you received does not in any way reflect the views of ABC Television, and most importantly is not at all consistent with the manner in which KATV, our valued partner in Little Rock, would ever treat their audience/community members.

Unfortunately, as in any organization, there are bound to be a few individuals that step out of line.  To that end, we completed a comprehensive investigation into the matter earlier this afternoon.  While the individual was deeply contrite and wanted to apologize to you, we felt that his actions were reprehensible and terminated him immediately.

Specifically in response to your original concerns regarding the subject of homosexuality in our programming, the ABC programming department has tried to treat such subjects in a sensitive manner.  We recognize that we are serving a large, diverse audience with a wide range of attitudes towards all types of entertainment programming.  We believe that programs thoughtfully reflecting social issues existing in our present society constitute proper television faire.

We appreciate your original comments and take serious note of your thoughts on the potential direction of future story lines.

We are glad that you brought the email incident to our attention.  We truly regret that this happened, and we hope you understand by our actions that we will not tolerate this kind of behavior from any member of our staff.

Finally, I would like to once again add that the response that you received should in no way be attributed to our partner in Little Rock, KATV.  Ad you well know, KATV has been the news and public affairs leader in Little Rock for years, and will be for many more.  A finer, more committed television station does not exist.  I would not want their reputation to suffer in any way due to our mishap.

Please accept our apologies and regrets.

Sincerely,

Daren Benzi

ABC Television Network

Target Messages

Does Target NOT charitably support veteran's groups but does support "gay and lesbian causes?"  FALSE 

The original message that began this uproar came from a man named Dick Forrey from the Howard County Vietnam Veteran's in Indiana.   Mr. Forrey went to his local Target store to ask for financial sponsorship for a traveling Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Wall exhibit.  Individual Target stores can give gift certificates to support area charities.  That is the same thing Walmart does.  The store did offer the gift certificate, but Mr. Forrey was interested only in a cash donation.  The store failed to tell him that the corporate office had a charitable giving policy in the form of grants.  Forrey finally found this out and contacted the corporate office.  In their correspondence to Mr. Forrey, they outlined their corporate grant policy as being limited to the following:  "education, arts and family violence prevention."  It is possible that this project may have been considered as educational, but Mr. Forrey decided not to even try for the grant and sent off an email stating that,  "Personally, I will NOT be buying anything at Target Stores again. If the Vietnam Veteran does not meet their area of giving then why should I as a Vietnam veteran, spend my hard earned money in their stores?"  It is very possible, considering Target's support of the traveling Vietnam wall project (more on that below), that the project would have qualified.  It was Mr. Forrey's decision not to go any further with the grant request and to put out this email instead. 

In his email, Mr. Forrey correctly quoted Target's grant policy as being, "education, arts and family violence prevention."  In March 2003, someone changed Mr. Forrey's words to read, "the arts, social actions, gay and lesbian causes, and education."  Not only does this message misquote Mr. Forrey, it is a patently false misrepresentation of Target's charitable grants policy.  Target did not respond back to Mr. Forrey that "veterans do not meet our area of giving."  As you will later see, it would be absurd for them to say such a thing since they are corporate sponsors of the traveling Viet Nam memorial called "The Wall That Heals."

I do want to say a couple of personal words about Mr. Forrey's attitude towards Target.  The fact that Target restricts actual corporate giving to certain areas is not at all unusual.  You cannot imagine how many charitable requests are received by even the smallest of companies on a daily basis.  I know, I used to be one of the people making those requests.  There's only so much of a pie to go around.  The gift certificate policy of Target is quite generous.  There are always small needs at special events that can be helped with these gift certificates.  To tell a corporation what it can and can't give is a little high-handed.  Even when I asked for a sponsorship, I was grateful if all I got was a prize or certificate.  At least the company wanted to help, even in a small way.  I realize that someone like Mr. Forrey is a volunteer fund raiser, but even he should realize that not everyone can give and that some will only be able to give certain things.  This strong-arm approach (give or else I'll make your name mud) is unwarranted.  Mr. Forrey had the opportunity to submit his project to the company for a grant, just like everyone else.  He was the one who decided that the project did not fit their categories of giving, not Target.

Target was a major corporate sponsor for the "Wall That Heals" 2003 tour and many veterans organizations, including the national chapter of Veterans of Foreign Wars, have come to the company's defense over this issue. (information gleaned from Break-The-Chain and Snopes- links shown below).  I have also found out about other veterans issues and groups that Target supports. These include: Yankee Air Force Museum in Ypsilanti, Michigan; Hays County Veterans in San Marcos, Texas;  Kenny Nickelson Memorial Foundation for Homeless Veterans in Manhattan Beach, California.  Finally, they are very supportive of the veterans and military reservists working for them.  A recent email lauded Sears for continuing benefits for reservists, but Target does the same. The Reserve Officers Association has recognized Target for these benefits.

In a message to me, Target spokesperson Aimee Sands detailed their policy about the Toys For Tots issue.  "Target greatly respects the good work of the Toys for Tots program and all the volunteers who make this program a success every year. Target has a longstanding policy of no-solicitation by any group or organization at our stores. This policy includes the use of our store locations as collection or drop off sites for any type of activity. The only organization that we currently allow to solicit at our stores during the holiday season is the Salvation Army, due to our longstanding relationship with this organization."

If we were to follow the advice of this message, we could not shop at any department store, since none of them, to my knowledge, are Toys For Tots collection centers.  In my area, the main collection center is at a bank with various churches and other businesses participating.  Not one department store is on that list.

Finally, here are Target's official words on the subject: "Target Corporation wholeheartedly supports U.S. veterans, reservists and active duty personnel. We are proud of our record and remain committed to continuing support of veterans’ organizations as part of our overall charitable giving program."

Did Target give the Salvation Army the boot?

Versions of the previous message coming out in 2006 also accused Target of booting the Salvation Army.  This allegation is true.  However, for many years Target has had a policy of NOT allowing charity groups (or any groups) to solicit in front of stores.  They made an exception for the Salvation Army.  When Target decided not to have the Salvation Army back in 2005, they pointed to their policy, but no real explanation was given as to why they chose to break the policy all those years before nor why they chose that year to boot them.  This being the case, Target was not exhibiting any anti-religious bias.

Is Target French-owned?

The first thing to do is to define the word "owned."  In a publicly traded company, all the stockholders are the "owners."  I suppose one could say that a company was French owned if the majority of stockholders were from France.  If the company is owned by another company one would need to determine where the owning company's base of operations is.  However, just because a company's base may be located in one country does not mean that the company is of that origin.  Again, the company may be publicly traded.  Finally, there are companies that are outright owned by a country itself.  An example would be Citgo, which is wholly owned by the country of Venezuela. 

Target Stores is owned by a company out of Minneapolis that also owns Marshal Fields and Meryvn's. It began in 1902 as the Dayton Dry Goods Company out of Minneapolis. The company name was changed to Dayton's in 1953. The first Target Store opens in 1962. In 1971, the company merges with J.L. Hudson, a Detroit company which owns shopping centers and Mervyn's. They then became the Dayton-Hudson Company. They acquired Marshal Field's in 1990. In 1996, the main focus of their community giving becomes education. In 2000 they officially change their name to Target Corporation. The HQ is still in Minneapolis. The company does have publicly traded stocks, so persons residing in France could certainly own stocks.

Is Petro Express actually by Citgo by another name?

At the time of this message (early 2006), the Petro Express chain was American owned and headquarters was in Charlotte, NC.  In 2007, Pantry, Inc. (Kangaroo) bought Petro Express.  Pantry is located Sanford, NC. Apparently, someone had a grudge against the chain and started the email in 2006.

Petro Express had purchased some of their gas from Citgo in the past.  In late 2006 they decided not to purchase any more gas from Citgo and to use only their name brand.

The original email was copied from an AFA Action Alert and did not mention Petro Express.  It was about boycotting Citgo.  In late 2006 someone added both Circle K and Petro Express and claimed that Citgo stores were simply changing their name to these.  Both allegations were, and still are false. 

Is Pepsi coming out with new cans with the pledge to the American flag on them MINUS the words "under God?"

The original message that began in 2001 named Dr. Pepper as the culprit, and although the majority of the information was wrong, there was some grain of truth to it involving Dr. Pepper.

In 2001, DR. PEPPER, not PEPSI, put out a limited edition patriotic can. It had a picture of the statue of Liberty with the words, "ONE NATION . . . INDIVISIBLE" That's all it said.

Suddenly, the American Family Association had Christians up in arms, claiming that the company had posted the Pledge of Allegiance on cans minus the words, "UNDER GOD."

Without benefit of seeing the actual can, many people wrote angry letters to Dr. Pepper. The company replied to people that in choosing only those three words, it had not been their intention to offend anyone. The email that later started as a result of all this claimed that Dr. Pepper said the opposite. It claimed (just as the message does), that they had purposely left out the two words in order not to offend anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Starbucks/Oscar Meyer/Whatever Co. Wont' support American military personnel or won't send goods to them

In 2004, Sgt. Howard Wright was talking to some buddies.  One of them claimed that he heard that some Marines wanted some Starbucks coffee, so they wrote Starbucks to ask for some to be sent to where they were deployed.  Supposedly, Starbucks wrote back and said that they didn't support the war nor anyone in it and would not send their coffee. Sgt. Wright became angered and sent the information along by email. Unfortunately for Sgt. Wright, that was false story. However, once you send out an email like that, it will take on a life of it's own. Sgt. Wright, upon learning that it was false, tried to set the record straight and directly contacted hoax debunking sights (including this one), but, as in the case of Jim Neugent vs. ABC, no one was much interested in a nice truth.  The nasty lie will continue on and on.

After I first posted this information, I heard directly from both Starbucks employees and Starbucks partners on this one and they say it's a bunch of baloney.  I've also heard from military personnel who are enjoying their coffee thanks to the Starbucks partners program.

Of course, this had all the red flags associated with a hoax.  Note that the information is given to the writer second hand: "some marines (what marines?) wrote to Starbucks . . ."   "Starbucks wrote back. . . " (show the letter and who wrote it). Was it written by a manager of an individual store who, while having a right to an opinion, has no rights to speak for the company?  Was it written by the Corporation with a signature by someone authorized to speak for the company? Always ask: when, where, why, who. Who were these Marines? Who authorized the letter? What EXACTLY (exact quote) did the letter say? This doesn't meet the W's test! 

Let's look at a couple of other points: 
(1) Starbucks is a publicly owned company with a Board of Directors, not privately owned.  If this were true, all of the people on the Board would have to agree that (a) they don't support the war in Iraq (b) they won't send any coffee to military personnel as a result.  At that point, the stockholders can rebel.  The stockholders own the company.

(2) Starbucks, like other companies, has a corporate giving policy in writing. It dictates what they can and can't give to. Many companies limit areas of giving. You have to understand that there is only so much of a pie to go around.  Their policy on this issue is this:  they do not send coffee directly overseas to military personnel, but have Starbuck's partners do this.  You will see their corporate giving policy outlined in their statement below.  Following is Starbuck's reply to me on this issue.

Thank you for taking the time to contact Starbucks regarding coffee donations to those serving in our armed forces.

Starbucks has the deepest respect and admiration for U.S. military personnel. We are extremely grateful to the men and women who serve stateside or overseas. We sincerely appreciate that they are willing to risk their lives to protect Americans and our values of freedom and democracy. While Starbucks as a company cannot directly donate to military personnel, many of our partners (employees) show their support by donating coffee.

Starbucks partners receive one pound of free coffee each week as an employee benefit (known as "partner mark-out"). Many of our partners have elected to send their weekly mark-out of coffee to members of the military or military families, and related organizations. Our partners have collected and shipped numerous pounds of Starbucks coffee overseas.

As an example of this generosity, our partners in our Atascadero, California store sent their weekly mark out coffee to troops in Afghanistan so they are able to enjoy a little piece of home. Our customer relations department in Seattle donated hundreds of pounds of coffee to the sailors in the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group. These are just a few examples of our partners supporting the troops. We recognize and appreciate the very personal connection that customers have with us and how they might miss their Starbucks Experience while overseas.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify Starbucks' policy regarding charitable contributions. We are able to donate to nonprofit organizations that are designated as public charities under Section 501(c) (3) of the IRS Code, and are extended to public libraries and schools. Over the years, Starbucks has built many enduring relationships with nonprofit organizations that are aligned with our focus areas of charitable giving. The U.S. military or individual military personnel do not qualify as a public charity.

Thank you again for writing and ask you to accept our deepest appreciation to servicemen and women and hope you remain a valued Starbucks customer.

Is the Hershey PA Chocolate plant moving to Mexico?

The Pennsylvania plant is not closing nor is Hershey's moving to Mexico.  It is opening a plant in Mexico, but the U.S. will not be the market for the products produced there.

Hershey's plants that are closing include all Canadian operations, Oakdale, CA, Naugatuck, CT & Reading, PA (not Hershey, PA).  They don't have operations in Canada anymore either.

The Hershey, PA plant was cutting 10% of its workforce in 2007, shutting down Oakdale, CA, Naugatuck, CT & Reading, PA.  They were cutting about 900 jobs among 3 plants in Hershey, PA.  It was reducing the different lines it produces by a third.  This was partly due to change in American eating habits.

The issue in 2010 is a new deal with the union.  More jobs will probably be lost if the deal is struck.  As of June 2010 their is a tentative deal awaiting vote by the union which will affect the Hershey, PA plants.

Did McDonalds announce that they would begin to mostly use South American beef?

The message that began circulating in 2002 not only claims that McDonalds announced this, but that the original message was sent by the Texas Cattle Feeders Association.  The Texas Cattle Feeders Association has denied any involvement in this message.

At the time the message came out McDonald's was importing small quantities of beef (1%) from two other high beef producing nations:  Australia and New Zealand, not South America.  It was somewhat cheaper, but the issue was that there simply isn't enough production of lean beef in the US to satisfy all the demand.  In the message it is claimed that McDonalds said that there wasn't enough U.S. beef, not lean beef. Further, standards are HIGHER in those 2 countries and there is less grain fed beef.  This results in less antibiotics being needed.  The grain fed beef fattens faster, but they don't naturally eat grain, so the antibiotics are needed to fight off infections.  These are blamed for several childhood health issues.  I already try to find cheese listed where the milk is coming from animals given no antibiotics.  The grain fed beef is still somewhat more expensive.

So, far from putting the public at risk, the addition of Australian & New Zealand beef is actually a slight improvement.  Further, you'd have to avoid ALL the rest of the fast food joints as well.  McDonald says that all foreign beef used is USDA approved and inspected.  Burger King has been using beef from Australia and New Zealand for years prior to this and Taco Bell, Wendy's and Carls Jr. use up to 50% foreign beef.  McDonald's claims to be the biggest purchaser of beef in the U.S. as it uses over one billion pounds per year.

Dispelling Coke Use Mythology

Ah, Coke mythology! Actually, nearly everyone of these items has been debunked.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE  

In many states the highway patrol carries two gallons of Coke in the trunk to remove blood from the highway after a car accident. FALSE. No one who has investigated this message has been able to locate any highway patrol unit that carries Coke for blood removal. As one research said, "Plain water would be as effective and less costly for cleaning pavement." It would certainly leave a nice sticky mess on the pavement that would have to be rinsed off with - you guessed it - WATER. Just use water in the first place! If anyone ever finds a highway patrol unit spending money on Coke and claiming it's for blood removal, turn 'em in and tell them to buy their Cokes with their own money.

You can put a T-bone steak in a bowl of coke and it will be gone in two days. FALSE. Try the experiment yourself. Loads of people have. It does not work. The steak will get very mushy from the liquid and it will tenderize. It won't dissolve.

To clean a toilet: Pour a can of Coca-Cola into the toilet bowl...Let the "real thing" sit for one hour, then flush clean. FALSE. Coke will be a poor china cleaner. The only cleaning properties in Coke is the carbonic acid (which will cause a bit of foaming) and the small amount of citric acid (a known cleaner helper). However, the carmel coloring and sugar will not be helpful. Besides, since when does a liquid adhere to the sides of the bowl? It doesn't. Anyone can tell you that carmel coloring stains. You'd do better with plain baking soda or clear, sugar free soda water. This has also been tried with poor results.

The citric acid in Coke removes stains from vitreous china. SAME.

To remove rust spots from chrome car bumpers: Rub the bumper with a crumpled-up piece of Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil dipped in Coca-Cola. Dip the aluminum in any liquid, or again, in baking soda charged water. Better than leaving yourself with a sticky mess.

To clean corrosion from car battery terminals: Pour a can of Coca-Cola over the terminals to bubble away the corrosion. Same to same. It's the soda, so any form of foaming soda will work. Again, better than leaving yourself with a sticky mess to clean up.

To loosen a rusted bolt: Applying a cloth soaked in Coca-Cola to the rusted bolt for several minutes. Same to same. However, further down I provide a link by a young lady who thought she'd try these things as an experiment. She says that numbers 3 - 7 don't work at all.

To bake a moist ham: Empty a can of Coca-Cola into the baking pan; wrap the ham in aluminum foil, and bake. Thirty minutes before the ham is finished, remove the foil, allowing the drippings to mix with the Coke for a sumptuous brown gravy. Of course Coke is great for ham. The soda and citric acid help in tenderizing, while the sugar and flavorings penetrate the ham and make it taste good. In Texas, we used Dr. Pepper instead. We also used it for roast and for brisket. I thought this anti-coke missive was supposed to be dissing Coke, but here is a yummy use!

The PH in the phosphorus is actually higher than stated. It won't dissolve a nail (been tried). Lemon juice is far more acidic. Even OJ contains more phosphoric acid than Coke.

Trucks carrying sodas often have to carry haz-mat warnings, but not because the spillage of Coke could be hazardous. The same would be true of beer, champagne, plain soda water, etc., because in all of those, the carbonation is kept in under pressure. You know what happens if a soda can bursts or the champagne cork blows off! Yes, there certainly could be danger.

Coke doesn't use the soda to clean truck engines. They'd have to be crazy to pour all that corn syrup over an engine! What they'd end up with is a sticky engine that will commence to smoking. Next time you see a delivery truck, ask the driver. It's not a good idea anyway to wash an engine unless it’s done by a professional.

The disintegrating tooth idea wouldn't fare any better than the meat or the nail. If Coke can't eat away at a steak, how's it going to do so with a tooth? It's the cumulative effect of the sugars that promote tooth decay and help to wear away enamel. Also, the message claims that Coke is a good cleaner for toilets and china. If it would eat away a tooth, why would it be good for any kind of enamel finish? After the soda cleans it and the soda goes flat, all that will be left is corn syrup, flavorings and colorings. The corn syrup will make the tooth sticky and the colorings will discolor it. That's all.  Soda is a good cleaner, but not corn syrup.  I use baking soda and vinegar for cleaning quite often.

As to the idea that we're getting aluminum from drinking soda, how come in all these umpteen years that vegetables and everything else under the sun have been canned in aluminum, the writer isn't wondering why we aren't getting aluminum from that? If they're really concerned, they could buy soda only in plastic or glass containers. Would that solve the problem? No, because they'll be yelling about the plastic.  There are plenty of unscientific messages floating around the internet about plastics.

If sugar is the cause of arthritis, then just about everyone should have it. Lot's of my friends guzzle sugar and sodas and don't have it.  It is certainly one the catalysts for diabetes.

When you order from Amazon, support Truth Miners by clicking this link first