[OT] Posting unnecessary quotes! (was: [OT] Slashdot and media accuracy)
First off, sorry for top-posting.
Look at the e-mail below. Is it necessary to include 85 lines of quotes
just to say one sentence? This happens all too often in my opinion.
Olle
On Monday 01 December 2003 15.41, Tom wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:21:25AM -0600, Hoyt Bailey wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "csj" <csj@zapo.net>
> > To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 18:25
> > Subject: [OT] Slashdot and media accuracy (was Re: Improved Debian
> > Project Emergency Communications)
> >
> > > On 1. December 2003 at 7:51AM +0800,
> > >
> > > "David Palmer." <davidpalmer@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:01:22 -0800
> > > >
> > > > "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > In practically all slashdot stories I've read (I wouldn't
> > > necessarily call them news), there are always links to check out.
> > > This is how I initially found out about the Debian compromise
> > > (actually it was via a slashdot RDF newsfeed). I read the blurb,
> > > checked the link(s?) and then went googling around. To rely 100%
> > > on slashdot is as dangerous as relying 100% on CNN or Fox News.
> >
> > Exception CNN 0% Fox News 90% +/- (depending on source)
>
> I'll agree Fox is for the stupid, but it's better than 40 movies being
> made about the president getting some poon on the side :-)
>
> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Slashdot never screws up. A forum never screws up.
> > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Slashdot has editors? Now that's news. I've always thought of
> > > Slashdot as the text-based equivalent of a talk show. Somebody
> > > comes up with an item for discussion, and a panel of commentators
> > > begin firing away. Of course, talk shows, like some mailing
> > > lists (not Debian User), have moderators, who have the privilege
> > > of deciding what initial topic gets discussed.
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I don't know about the "instant". But most newspapers worth
> > > their name have the equivalent of a "letters" section.
> > >
> > > > The mainstream media also have an extremely high 'tame' factor.
> > > > The political strategy is always involved with maintaining a
> > > > common doctrine so as to maintain a population mass proceeding
> > > > in what is perceived as a 'common productive direction', for
> > > > example. This is a marketable commodity. It is also a path
> > > > that diverges from that of the honest one. There are reasons
> > > > why, for example, that journalists in warzones have their
> > > > stories 'vetted' before they are approved for release to the
> > > > outside world.
> > >
> > > I can understand the vetting done to so-called "embedded"
> > > journalists.
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: