"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1529375.eCzMxR7kH8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> There's no peer review and editorial
> layer in UseNet forums, but if something wrong is there, a shill will
> probably be there to set things straight. Silence equates to bitter
> expression of consent.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but are you justifying posting
information, true or false, because a shill will correct you? Do you
consider everyone who has ever corrected you on here to be a shill?
I used to correct your posts. I did it because I had assumed you cared
for things like journalistic integrity. But you rarely acknowledged these
corrections (I think you may have done it two or three times), and I've
taken a lot of verbal abuse for my corrections.
So I gave up trying. I no longer bother correcting your posts. That
doesn't mean your posts have magically gained an increase in accuracy. This
silence is not a bitter expression of consent.
To get accuracy takes effort. At a minimum, you should actually read the
articles you quote from (there are a couple of posts which seem to indicate
that you don't bother to do this). Once you do this, you should actually do
some background research on the topics you're reporting. See what other
stories corroborate your claim. Check what the opposition says. Weigh both
sides of the argument, and try to come up with a theory of what actually
happened.
I'm not saying you should advocate Windows Vista in this newsgroup. I'm
saying when someone makes an accusation about Vista, check what the
pro-Windows people are saying in response first to determine if there's some
merit to the accusation, or if it's just some anonymous blogger making
things up. If there is some basis, go ahead and post about whatever it is
that's wrong with Vista. If it turns out that it was just some blogger
making something up, then drop the story.
Obviously, all of this takes time, and so you'll be forced to reduce the
number of posts you make. But I'm sure that if you go through all these
motions, the quality of your posts will increase significantly.
Some of your posts are really good, Roy. But when the good posts are
mixed in with the inaccurate ones, it really reduces the signal-to-noise
ratio and destroys your credibility.
And seriously, respect competing products, and use the names they've
choosen for themselves. It's "Windows Vista", not "Windows XP SP3" (which,
BTW, exists, and is a distinct product from Vista). If you don't do at least
this, I don't know how you can expect anyone to take anything you say
seriously. Recall the poster who posted under the name "Roy Shitzmepants"
(or something similar). Without even reading their posts -- just by seeing
their name -- was your reaction "Hmm, I'm curious as to what this person has
to say about Linux" or was it "This is obvious an idiot not worth my time."?
People will react similarly towards you if you distort the names of things
you don't like.
- Oliver
|
|
