HankB
Member
[QUOTE='Card]Everyone who makes their living from being an 'expert' at something is feeling increasingly threatened by the web these days.[/QUOTE]+1
A good example was Clint Smith's column denouncing as "turd suckers" those legions of ignorant fools who had the audacity to question any aspect of the wonderful synergistic perfection his TR Special S&W revolver design embodied.
Ayoob's comment about net ninjas is mild by comparison.
To a large extent, in my eyes, forums like THR are opportunities to share opinions with group of people having similar interests and a great variety of life experiences.
When opinions are posted, counter-opinions invariably follow, and to a large extent, errors in any "message" are self-correcting; state something outlandish (Example: "I think 20 grains of Bullseye is a great .44 Special load") and there will rapidly follow a large number of responses warning that such a loading would be, shall we say, ill-advised, with quotes from various sources showing that such a load is FAR in excess of ANY recommendation found in ANY reloading manual, and such a load would be a recipe for disaster.
I see no such immediate "error-correction" mechanism in the gun print media. In fact, even corrections of a purely editorial nature are rare.
If a particular writer is favored by the magazine editor, his opinions will be given a lot of play . . . and if he occasionally contradicts himself, well, who's going to point it out in the same magazine? That might diminish his stature as a writer, and readers might get the idea the guy doesn't actually walk on water . . .
Not so in forums like THR . . . some criticisms may be off base, but again, the medium, thanks to lively discussion, is largely self-correcting.
A good example was Clint Smith's column denouncing as "turd suckers" those legions of ignorant fools who had the audacity to question any aspect of the wonderful synergistic perfection his TR Special S&W revolver design embodied.
Ayoob's comment about net ninjas is mild by comparison.
To a large extent, in my eyes, forums like THR are opportunities to share opinions with group of people having similar interests and a great variety of life experiences.
When opinions are posted, counter-opinions invariably follow, and to a large extent, errors in any "message" are self-correcting; state something outlandish (Example: "I think 20 grains of Bullseye is a great .44 Special load") and there will rapidly follow a large number of responses warning that such a loading would be, shall we say, ill-advised, with quotes from various sources showing that such a load is FAR in excess of ANY recommendation found in ANY reloading manual, and such a load would be a recipe for disaster.
I see no such immediate "error-correction" mechanism in the gun print media. In fact, even corrections of a purely editorial nature are rare.
If a particular writer is favored by the magazine editor, his opinions will be given a lot of play . . . and if he occasionally contradicts himself, well, who's going to point it out in the same magazine? That might diminish his stature as a writer, and readers might get the idea the guy doesn't actually walk on water . . .
Not so in forums like THR . . . some criticisms may be off base, but again, the medium, thanks to lively discussion, is largely self-correcting.