At least he recognizes that the site was in decline when it was sold. Some might criticize him for not doubling down and putting himself back in to it, but he made his choice.
Welcome to the new slashdot - facebook news for conservatives.
At least he recognizes that the site was in decline when it was sold. Some might criticize him for not doubling down and putting himself back in to it, but he made his choice.
Welcome to the new slashdot - facebook news for conservatives.
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
The behavior would be astonishing, if I weren't as well versed in human nature.
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
Well, I cannot force to you pay attention to the front page if you don't want to.
However anyone who does pay attention can confirm:
There are at least 2 front-page stories about facebook or it's founder in any 24 hour period - and often many many more
There is at least 1 front page story in any 24 hour period that is promoting conservative principles - and often more
There is at most one article in a week that looks favorably on a liberal concerp - and often less
Go ahead, don't just make claims like that. Back them up with actual links. I want you to show me a consistent, frequent pattern of what you have just stated.
Don't even try to tell me this site isn't dedicated to facebook news for conservatives.
No, you have to show that this is the case. You have yet to do so.
Go ahead, don't just make claims like that. Back them up with actual links. I want you to show me a consistent, frequent pattern of what you have just stated.
Don't even try to tell me this site isn't dedicated to facebook news for conservatives.
No, you have to show that this is the case. You have yet to do so.
For example, by typing "facebook" into/.'s built in search bar; doing so, you will find precisely 2 facebook stories from this week; 2 / 3 != 1 per day.
For last week, 5, except 3 of the 5 aren't actually about facebook directly - 2 / 7 != 1 per day, either.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
For example, by typing "facebook" into/.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
But you are new here, so I can give you a pass on that.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
For example, by typing "facebook" into/.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims and failing to back said claims with evidence. Don't like the source I cite? Provide your own or STFU (or get seen as the nonsensical troll you're currently coming off as).
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
It appears you don't know the difference between literary and scientific definition.
For example, by typing "facebook" into/.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims and failing to back said claims with evidence.
Just because you disagree with something does not automatically make it "outrageous".
Don't like the source I cite? Provide your own
Here's a source for you [slashdot.org]. Just keep scrolling back through the old front page stories and count 'em up. You have access to the same data I am citing, you are just choosing not to look at it.
or STFU
Wow, how very kind you are.
(or get seen as the nonsensical troll you're currently coming off as).
You are the one who is throwing labels on statements you disagree with. If you choose not to read the front page, I cannot change your choice for you.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
It appears you don't know the difference between literary and scientific definition.
Do you even know what site you are looking at, or are you just typing whatever comes to mind to see what sticks? Here's a hint - the pitch line for this site starts with "news for nerds", not "cmdrtaco's pop fiction review site". Science is discussed here often. Literature, not nearly as much.You might want to consider reading up on some middle-school level science before you go sticking your neck out and trying to correct people.
Interesting navel gazing (Score:4, Interesting)
Welcome to the new slashdot - facebook news for conservatives.
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
At least he recognizes that the site was in decline when it was sold. Some might criticize him for not doubling down and putting himself back in to it, but he made his choice. Welcome to the new slashdot - facebook news for conservatives.
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
The behavior would be astonishing, if I weren't as well versed in human nature.
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
Well, I cannot force to you pay attention to the front page if you don't want to.
However anyone who does pay attention can confirm:
Don't even try to tell me this site isn't d
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Go ahead, don't just make claims like that. Back them up with actual links. I want you to show me a consistent, frequent pattern of what you have just stated.
No, you have to show that this is the case. You have yet to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Go ahead, don't just make claims like that. Back them up with actual links. I want you to show me a consistent, frequent pattern of what you have just stated.
No, you have to show that this is the case. You have yet to do so.
For example, by typing "facebook" into /.'s built in search bar; doing so, you will find precisely 2 facebook stories from this week; 2 / 3 != 1 per day.
For last week, 5, except 3 of the 5 aren't actually about facebook directly - 2 / 7 != 1 per day, either.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
For example, by typing "facebook" into /.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since ... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
But you are new here, so I can give you a pass on that.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, by typing "facebook" into /.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since ... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims and failing to back said claims with evidence. Don't like the source I cite? Provide your own or STFU (or get seen as the nonsensical troll you're currently coming off as).
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
It appears you don't know the difference between literary and scientific definition.
Re:Interesting navel gazing (Score:2)
For example, by typing "facebook" into /.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since ... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims and failing to back said claims with evidence.
Just because you disagree with something does not automatically make it "outrageous".
Don't like the source I cite? Provide your own
Here's a source for you [slashdot.org]. Just keep scrolling back through the old front page stories and count 'em up. You have access to the same data I am citing, you are just choosing not to look at it.
or STFU
Wow, how very kind you are.
(or get seen as the nonsensical troll you're currently coming off as).
You are the one who is throwing labels on statements you disagree with. If you choose not to read the front page, I cannot change your choice for you.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
It appears you don't know the difference between literary and scientific definition.
Do you even know what site you are looking at, or are you just typing whatever comes to mind to see what sticks? Here's a hint - the pitch line for this site starts with "news for nerds", not "cmdrtaco's pop fiction review site". Science is discussed here often. Literature, not nearly as much.You might want to consider reading up on some middle-school level science before you go sticking your neck out and trying to correct people.