Tracking the RIAA Source

[Declan McCullagh]

John, we all adore you, but you gotta decide whether you're going to
stand behind what you post or not. Either way -- you say it's legit or
you disclaim all knowledge of its validity -- is fine with me, and, I
suspect, the bulk of your readers.

But right now you seem to want to have it both ways. You want to be
able to claim credit for when what you post is legit, and you want to
be able to slink away from what you post that's a fucking lying hoax,
to use your words.

Otherwise you'll just be used by fucking lying hoaxers, and worse.

Let me put this another way. Based on my conversations yesterday, I
have every reason to believe that the hoax was, well, a hoax. If you
have a shred of evidence to the contrary that your hoax-report was in
fact true, please do post it.

No? You don't? I see.

Your fan,
Declan


On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 08:29:08PM -0700, John Young wrote:
> But Declan, are you saying your word about checking
> is to be believed? I didn't see your proof. How is your 
> position not a hoax? Names and dates and documents
> to back them or you're a fucking lying hoaxer.
> 
> Did you ask to see any of the RIAA messages, and if so,
> did you see them. You didn't ask me what might be
> in the ones I got, if there were others (there are), if 
> this is a campaign run by RIAA to create sympathy,
> or some other vile deed much worse than a trivial
> hoax which seems to beguile overmuch. 
> 
> Why the rush to judgment to believe "people who allegedly
> were there?" Where's your healthy skeptcism of these
> people. None of the persons listed in the message are
> trustworthy if you're not in their loop. Are you in their
> loop, then you got a problem vouching for what they
> told you. You slimey suckup, you boy with cute eyes.
> you, you, Brad Pitt.
> 
> Were you so blinded by the desire to whack your competition
> that you failed to see a genuine story -- which has yet to
> researched and reported? Why the eagerness to wash your
> hands, as with Tony Smith, to not follow the lead handed
> to you. Why not do an truly original interesting story, you, 
> you recycler.
> 
> Let me give you some pointers on getting why getting 
> sucker punched works, compared to getting fat-headed
> on inside dope. You need more punchdrunkenness to
> offset your condescending pretentiousness. Grow half
> a beard. Chop a finger. And stop grinning so much. 
> 
> Take the sucker punches for they give you a look at the 
> enemy not available by a frank and earnest confab. Truth
> comes out by hammer blows not by popping zits.
> 
> You have performed worse than The Register on this,
> I opine from this pinnacle of Absolom. And you are now 
> using delphic putdowns to beg the important issue -- 
> which is why do reporters run from really brusing
> challenges yet brag about the creampufferies of,
> what else, free speech (spit). A hoax is not worth the 
> time it takes to debunk it, they are every where. 
> More interesting is what's behind the RIAA orchestrated 
> deception kind. If guys like you, offal meisers, did a good 
> job there would be no need for us purehearted bottom-feeders 
> where the repugant action takes place and where you 
> never know for sure who's out to plant false info -- you've 
> done that with me more than once. You, you American.
> 
> This is the word of Jehovah Allah, so watch your fucking 
> obscenity.