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 ... > 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. Ditto, and yeah, scary. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
