I know what you mean... little mistakes that completely discredit the
author's knowledge of what they're writing about. The worst is when that
sort of thing happens in a record review; the critic's entire argument just
completely falls apart because a little mistake reveals that they have no
idea what they're talking about. I read a review of Pavement's "Terror
Twilight" and the critic was bashing it going on about how Pavement were
boring and stale and irrelevent in 1999... and then he goes on to say
something about "lead singer Mark Ibold"; you just want to say "ok,
nevermind... forget I asked your opinion".
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [MMouse]: Re: rollingstone
In a message dated 5/11/00 12:44:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In accordance with their user regulations, NAPSTER has banned 300,000
> Metallica fans from its site for allegedly trading copyrighted songs by
the
> band illegally
it's a program that they're blocked from; not a site! why can't these
people
take two seconds to factcheck.
sorry, i know this is prolly dead for most of you, but it just annoys the
hell out of me.
star
