Criticism Debate

[L. Bird]

>>That's rude.

>No, playing coy and pretending you don't understand what I'm saying is 
>rude.

I understand what you're saying, and you may know that I tend to look behind 
people's words, too.  ;)


>Like I said, it only took me a minute to see this was fake, and the content
should have set of alarm bells anyway.  I think a good rule of thumb is that
*any* article should be posted with its source.  That is, of course, my
opinion.  If you see the text of an article on a list, but no link, it only
takes a minute to look for the original.

I did look at it, and did decide that it was not necessarily "fake" but 
rather low probability for reliability.  That's why I posted it with 
"possible" and the question mark included.  You and Kevin are both 
completely up in arms that anything not 100 percent serious and correct 
might be published on the list, but you're failing to make the distinction 
between data and items of interest.  The Shout (since their name has come 
up) seemed to have a good time with this, dissecting the info and looking 
for word games in the titles.  You and Kevin have, instead, disrupted this 
list with complaints about "fakes" and how dreadful it might be to 
disseminate anything other than hard data.  So, is this rigidity a facet of 
your particular personalities?

Items are not necessarily fakes, BTW, just because there is no link 
associated with them.  There are other types of media besides the Internet, 
though I agree that lack of any credit is a reason for suspicion.  And Who 
knows?  This hasn't been proved completely wrong yet.  The date turned out 
to be roughly correct for the mini-opera.  If any of the titles turn out to 
be true, then we've had a bit of advance excitement.  :)


>Look, *everyone* makes mistakes, but you don't even acknowledge yours.  
>That
troubles me because these hoaxes end up living on in people's minds.  Like
that fake Pete interview you mentioned.

Clearly this was a mistake, as it has disrupted the list and sparked a 
problem between Kevin and Paul.  However, I did not represent this as a 
bulletin straight from The Who camp, or even a leak from some deep 
insider--it's just a post that was going around.  If you're waiting for 
every bit of news on the list to meet strict criteria, then you may have a 
long wait.

I think the Pete interview was a special case, very difficult to identify as 
a hoax, and I can't understand what Adam was doing in posting it and then 
not ever identifying it as a hoax.  I wondered later if someone had hoaxed 
him about the origins and he wouldn't admit it.  Whatever, astute readers on 
this list immediately picked holes in it.

Whatever, I'm about through with this topic.  If you have any real points to 
make, then please hurry up.  I'm not going to continue an argument that's 
only a difference of opinion about what's appropriate to post.


keets