Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 4, Insightful) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-02 12:42 (#2T27) dailymail.co.uk? Christ.How about a source that isn't total garbage?(I'm not normally one to just complain, but seriously.) Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 1, Insightful) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-02 22:50 (#2T2E) Is there something inaccurate in the linked story at all?Assuming not, why should I or anyone else be concerned with your particular preference of news souce? Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 4, Informative) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 12:50 (#2T2M) Is there something inaccurate in the linked story at all?I don't real the Daily Mail. I read the other two sources I linked to instead.Assuming not, why should I or anyone else be concerned with your particular preference of news souce?Err, because I'm not necessarily just a blabbering moron. There's a finite possibility that the low opinion of the Daily Mail held by me and others is actually justified, wouldn't you agree?You appear to be implying that my opinion is irrelevant because it is subjective, but would you lend as much weight to the scientific ideas of a noisy drunk as to an article in Nature? Does a professor, marking her students' essays, prefer to see respectable sources cited in preference to tabloids?High-quality sources are a practical concern. Linking to bullshit sources like the Daily Mail really is something to avoid. Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 0) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 19:18 (#2T2Q) You appear to be implying that my opinion is irrelevant because it is subjectiveNo, actually I was implying your opinion is irrelevant because you've never contributed anything of value...Linking to bullshit sources like the Daily Mail really is something to avoid.You've declined to demonstrate that it is "bullshit," so no. The next time I happen to find something of interest at the daily mail, I will submit it like usual. Of course you are free to continue complaining about it. Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 19:35 (#2T2R) No, actually I was implying your opinion is irrelevant because you've never contributed anything of value...Shameless ad-hom, then. Cute.The next time I happen to find something of interest at the daily mail, I will submit it like usual.Regardless of whether there are better sources merely a Google-search away?Ok, let's turn this around: why do you not want Pipedot stories to avoid linking to tabloids? Tabloids are generally something to avoid on a tech-savvy site like this, no?The borderline-NSFW nonsense linked from the Daily Mail article should be reason enough. I'd rather get my scientific updates from a site that doesn't try to catch my interest with mostly-naked photos of (presumably) celebrities.
Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 1, Insightful) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-02 22:50 (#2T2E) Is there something inaccurate in the linked story at all?Assuming not, why should I or anyone else be concerned with your particular preference of news souce? Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 4, Informative) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 12:50 (#2T2M) Is there something inaccurate in the linked story at all?I don't real the Daily Mail. I read the other two sources I linked to instead.Assuming not, why should I or anyone else be concerned with your particular preference of news souce?Err, because I'm not necessarily just a blabbering moron. There's a finite possibility that the low opinion of the Daily Mail held by me and others is actually justified, wouldn't you agree?You appear to be implying that my opinion is irrelevant because it is subjective, but would you lend as much weight to the scientific ideas of a noisy drunk as to an article in Nature? Does a professor, marking her students' essays, prefer to see respectable sources cited in preference to tabloids?High-quality sources are a practical concern. Linking to bullshit sources like the Daily Mail really is something to avoid. Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 0) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 19:18 (#2T2Q) You appear to be implying that my opinion is irrelevant because it is subjectiveNo, actually I was implying your opinion is irrelevant because you've never contributed anything of value...Linking to bullshit sources like the Daily Mail really is something to avoid.You've declined to demonstrate that it is "bullshit," so no. The next time I happen to find something of interest at the daily mail, I will submit it like usual. Of course you are free to continue complaining about it. Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 19:35 (#2T2R) No, actually I was implying your opinion is irrelevant because you've never contributed anything of value...Shameless ad-hom, then. Cute.The next time I happen to find something of interest at the daily mail, I will submit it like usual.Regardless of whether there are better sources merely a Google-search away?Ok, let's turn this around: why do you not want Pipedot stories to avoid linking to tabloids? Tabloids are generally something to avoid on a tech-savvy site like this, no?The borderline-NSFW nonsense linked from the Daily Mail article should be reason enough. I'd rather get my scientific updates from a site that doesn't try to catch my interest with mostly-naked photos of (presumably) celebrities.
Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 4, Informative) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 12:50 (#2T2M) Is there something inaccurate in the linked story at all?I don't real the Daily Mail. I read the other two sources I linked to instead.Assuming not, why should I or anyone else be concerned with your particular preference of news souce?Err, because I'm not necessarily just a blabbering moron. There's a finite possibility that the low opinion of the Daily Mail held by me and others is actually justified, wouldn't you agree?You appear to be implying that my opinion is irrelevant because it is subjective, but would you lend as much weight to the scientific ideas of a noisy drunk as to an article in Nature? Does a professor, marking her students' essays, prefer to see respectable sources cited in preference to tabloids?High-quality sources are a practical concern. Linking to bullshit sources like the Daily Mail really is something to avoid. Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 0) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 19:18 (#2T2Q) You appear to be implying that my opinion is irrelevant because it is subjectiveNo, actually I was implying your opinion is irrelevant because you've never contributed anything of value...Linking to bullshit sources like the Daily Mail really is something to avoid.You've declined to demonstrate that it is "bullshit," so no. The next time I happen to find something of interest at the daily mail, I will submit it like usual. Of course you are free to continue complaining about it. Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 19:35 (#2T2R) No, actually I was implying your opinion is irrelevant because you've never contributed anything of value...Shameless ad-hom, then. Cute.The next time I happen to find something of interest at the daily mail, I will submit it like usual.Regardless of whether there are better sources merely a Google-search away?Ok, let's turn this around: why do you not want Pipedot stories to avoid linking to tabloids? Tabloids are generally something to avoid on a tech-savvy site like this, no?The borderline-NSFW nonsense linked from the Daily Mail article should be reason enough. I'd rather get my scientific updates from a site that doesn't try to catch my interest with mostly-naked photos of (presumably) celebrities.
Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 0) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 19:18 (#2T2Q) You appear to be implying that my opinion is irrelevant because it is subjectiveNo, actually I was implying your opinion is irrelevant because you've never contributed anything of value...Linking to bullshit sources like the Daily Mail really is something to avoid.You've declined to demonstrate that it is "bullshit," so no. The next time I happen to find something of interest at the daily mail, I will submit it like usual. Of course you are free to continue complaining about it. Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 19:35 (#2T2R) No, actually I was implying your opinion is irrelevant because you've never contributed anything of value...Shameless ad-hom, then. Cute.The next time I happen to find something of interest at the daily mail, I will submit it like usual.Regardless of whether there are better sources merely a Google-search away?Ok, let's turn this around: why do you not want Pipedot stories to avoid linking to tabloids? Tabloids are generally something to avoid on a tech-savvy site like this, no?The borderline-NSFW nonsense linked from the Daily Mail article should be reason enough. I'd rather get my scientific updates from a site that doesn't try to catch my interest with mostly-naked photos of (presumably) celebrities.
Re: Do not link to the Daily Mail. Ever. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-10-03 19:35 (#2T2R) No, actually I was implying your opinion is irrelevant because you've never contributed anything of value...Shameless ad-hom, then. Cute.The next time I happen to find something of interest at the daily mail, I will submit it like usual.Regardless of whether there are better sources merely a Google-search away?Ok, let's turn this around: why do you not want Pipedot stories to avoid linking to tabloids? Tabloids are generally something to avoid on a tech-savvy site like this, no?The borderline-NSFW nonsense linked from the Daily Mail article should be reason enough. I'd rather get my scientific updates from a site that doesn't try to catch my interest with mostly-naked photos of (presumably) celebrities.