On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:32:36 -0600 John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(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
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
