OFF: Fwd: More Metallica/Napster

[Paul Mather]

On Tue, 9 May 2000, MissileCommand wrote:

=> > That "Open Letter from Metallica" popped up (in its entirety) on another
=> > list to which I'm subscribed.  I'm gobsmacked that anyone would take it
=> > for genuine, it was such a glaringly obvious parody/fake.
=>
=> Are you completely sure of this? Unless you can prove it's fake
=> you can't claim to be right-Yes it's easily a fake, but I wouldn't
=> put it past Metallica to say such things.

Without some kind of privacy enhanced mail (digital signature support) I
cannot prove absolutely *any* mail message I receive is not a fake.  I
can't even prove I wrote *this* e-mail.  But that doesn't mean I should
forward any old message and claim it is relevant (especially if it is
incendiary).

I can't claim to be right, that's true.  But 100% surety is hard to
achieve (the courts don't work to that standard, so why should I?).
But before reposting third-hand information, I try to make a casual
attempt to verify it (which is usually easy).  For example, in the case
of virus hoaxes, a visit to sites such as CERT, Symantec, etc. are
normally a good screen, after screening for obvious BS ("what do you
mean this virus will cause my mouse to run away from my keyboard and my
laser printer to spit blood???").  Similarly, in the case of the "open
letter from Metallica," a quick visit to their WWW site would be another
easy way to try and assess its legitimacy.  (Surprise, surprise, it
doesn't appear on there.)

Even though I can't *prove* it is not a fake, I believe there is a high
probability that it is a fake, so, on those grounds, I didn't bother to
repost the one that cropped up on the other list I mentioned.

=> > The authors
=> > didn't even go to the bother of rustling up either a Metallica-related
=> > postal or e-mail address to give it even a soupcon of legitimacy.
=>
=> Since I received only a short clip from it, how can you be sure that such
=> information wasn't removed from your version?

I can't.  But then I reasoned it was unlikely that they would preserve
the headers but selectively remove parts of the message body.  Perhaps
that is a bad assumption.

=> I never claimed it was authentic, nor have I seen this "full
=> letter" (The comment below it was not mine either).  I forwarded
=> it as it was relavant to the earlier discussion.

Maybe I should make up a fake press release, "Hawkwind backs Metallica
Napster fight to the hilt: Brock vows to 'take a bullet' for Lars!" and
post it here?  I'm sure it would be similarly as relevant.  No need to
screen it for credibility.

=> > It just goes to show that critical literacy is alive and well and living
=> > somewhere other than the Internet...
=>
=> Perhaps subjects such as Metallica are not to be taken seriously
=> enough to demand a critical analysis of the material before
=> posting. sheesh! I mean, my mind is usually elsewhere and I'm glad
=> of it.

Yeah, and I guess unsubstantiated rumours do have their plus
sides: after all, one did prompt the "OPEN FORUM WITH DAVE BROCK" on
here not so long ago! :-)

Cheers,

Paul.

e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
 deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
        --- Frank Vincent Zappa