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. > It's not uncommon to have 2-3 news items a day that completely missed the > point, or misrepresented the point, of the article or technology on which > they're reporting. That's about how many I see in the "real" news media. However, since they publish corrections only on pain of lawsuit, I can detect those only by applying my own personal knowledge and experience. This means that I must assume that many more go undetected. It is my experience that the more I know about a subject the more errors I see in news about that subject. From this I conclude that news reporting on any given subject is no more accurate than reporting on those subjects about which I know the most. And that's pretty damn inaccurate. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
