On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:24:34PM -0500, Chris Metzler wrote: > 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) BS in a newspaper stands "as is". BS on /. is discussed, and there is a chance that it will be publicly stated to be BS. -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x21C61F7F
Attachment:
pgpSRt6ubdhFQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature