Re: [fc] fud-counter rationale posted

[D Clyde Williamson <dclydew@interhack.net>]

Thomas Pfau wrote:
> 
> D Clyde Williamson wrote:
> > I would alos like to hold out to reporters who are
> > willing to double check the facts, perhaps even by emailing one of us to
> > review an article, the ability to mark their article as a "FUD Free
> > Zone"... thoughts?
> 
> Is this really a good idea?  We accuse Microsoft of supplying the
> articles to the pro-ms press and here we go proposing to 'screen' the
> content of pro-linux press.  Let's just present the information they
> need to do their own research.  Let's not do it for them.  If they want
> to write uneducated articles, they'll do it whether we exist or not.
> 
> --
> Thomas Pfau
> pfau@maherterminals.com
> aka pfau@eclipse.net
> http://www.eclipse.net/~pfau/
> -
> Fud-counter:  Setting straight the facts
> Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
> Web Site:     http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/


I think that one rationale they currently have, is that they don't know
what is or isn't FUD. OUr review of the articles, wouldn't be for
content, only as a check if they desired to call the article FUD-Free.
Thus the article may be anti-Linux, but as long as there is no FUD, it
should be marked FUD-Free.
-
Fud-counter:  Setting straight the facts
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
Web Site:     http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/