on Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:53:37PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman (spam@bounceswoosh.org) wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 at 03:22 GMT, John Hasler penned:
> > Monique wrote:
> >> The difference is that, by allowing replies to accumulate and reading
> >> them filtered to +3, you have a decent chance of finding out when a
> >> submission was likely off-base.
> >
> > That's what I meant by corrections. Whenever Slashdot screws up I can
> > be fairly certain that several of its thousands of knowledgeable
> > readers will gleefully point out the error.
>
> Agreed. But I wanted to be clear, both to you and to everyone else,
> that slashdot's front page is *not* in any way guaranteed to be
> accurate. Taking any of their blurbs at face value tends to make an ass
> out of you ...
The blurbs are written by the article submitter, and (generally) not
Slashdot's editors.
The submitter may be wrong, misinformed, biased, or have an axe to
grind. Or not.
The "mainstream" media have gross factual errors in about 30-50% of
stories. Without, as noted here, the instant feedback offered by
Slashdot and other online sites.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Backgrounder on the Caldera/SCO vs. IBM and Linux dispute.
http://sco.iwethey.org/
Attachment:
pgpeKI6xC1tDh.pgp
Description: PGP signature