On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:32:36 -0600 John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote: > > Chris Metzler writes: > > Pick a specific topic that you're *expert* in, compared to the general > > /. population. Find in the archives and read a discussion on that > > topic. Look at the +3, +4 and +5 posts only. Do you really find them > > that impressive? My bet is that the answer will be "no." > > Now do likewise for the general media. The difference? The articles > are always written in an authoritative tone, and there is _no_ > discussion and_no_ comments. I'm confused as to what you're trying to say. It seems like you're saying that one source of crappy information (e.g. a news story in your local newspaper) isn't as good as a different source of crappy information (i.e. /.), because even though /.'s information is crappy, there's a lot *more* of it. (since, after all, it's in that discussion and commentary at /. that the crappiness resides) -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler@speakeasy.snip-me.net (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
Attachment:
pgphPPJvi5gYU.pgp
Description: PGP signature