Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ cc ] on Sunday 10 December 2006 16:35 \__
>
> >
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> __/ [ cc ] on Sunday 10 December 2006 14:11 \__
> >>
> >> > Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR
> >> > 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To:
> >>
> >>
> >> What are you doing here anyway?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Robert Newson wrote:
> >> >> Mark Kent wrote:
> >> >> Instead of warning in the subject line about the length of the post,
> >> >> could you not put a message about the news digest and then reply to it
> >> >> with the
> >> >> long message. Even though you warn in the subject, I have yet to find
> >> >> a way for my newsreader to avoid reading the message if I fail to
> >> >> manually spot it.
> >> >>
> >> >> By posting a warning and then the message as a reply to it, they would
> >> >> be threaded on my newsreader and I could kill the thread before wasting
> >> >> the time downloading the ~2000 lines.
> >> >
> >> > Or he could not post it at all. Since Roy has taken to lying in the
> >> > subjects of his [News] posts now, I don't really think it's appropriate
> >> > to post all the articles again, without any replies showing the ones
> >> > which are dishonest.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are they truly dishonest? Or is it simply the case that one among many
> >> messages that I post accidently contains an error? Just because you don't
> >> like the subject lines does not /necessarily/ make them erroneous. It is a
> >> Linux advocacy newsgroup. It's not your daily news, whose purpose is to
> >> present both sides no matter which one is rightful and which side's
> >> argument isn't even worth attention. Even newspapers, I might add, are
> >> inclined to please their funding sources, so there's a hidden agenda and
> >> bias.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Roy
> >
> > It's not that I don't like them. "PS3 has begun shipping with Linux
> > Pre-installed" is just an out and out lie for instance. Many times the
> > subject is just misleading, and well, since I don't know for sure I
> > guess we'll have to let those slide. But I find it hard to believe that
> > on the ones that are completely wrong that you don't know what you are
> > doing. Why isn't the subject of the [News] posts the title of the
> > article you're quoting anyway?
>
> I will admit that I was wrong on the PS3 shipping thing, but it was /NOT/
> deliberate. I am sometimes in a hurry and I can't read everything
> thoroughly. As I said before, it is easy to find flaws somewhere in a big
> pool of messages. I am not trying to noisify in order to use a nitpicking
> argument. I just think that these stories ought to be filed and documented
> properly. PJ's research, for example, greatly benefits from all these
> lobbying and bribery stories, which she often puts among the News Picks.
Alright sure, I can see that. But by the same token, not many of us are
reading all your posts to begin with, and we still find them. Anyway,
my main point was, that having both a digest and all your original News
posts is repetative, and harmful. No one who discusses your news
articles and points out any flaws(intentional or not) is going to come
back and do the same thing here for the digest. And vice versa. Why not
just have one or the other so at least anyone reading the news posts
can see the criticism/corrections as well?
|
|
