1994-04-04 - Re: PHILIP ZIMMERMAN ARRESTED [NOT!]

Header Data

From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
To: sbb@well.sf.ca.us
Message Hash: 9d264848490590c778f6629770d13379d18687b1fa6259d49ab14517a56bbaed
Message ID: <199404040313.UAA16069@mail.netcom.com>
Reply To: <199404040108.SAA02235@well.sf.ca.us>
UTC Datetime: 1994-04-04 03:12:15 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 3 Apr 94 20:12:15 PDT

Raw message

From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 94 20:12:15 PDT
To: sbb@well.sf.ca.us
Subject: Re:  PHILIP ZIMMERMAN ARRESTED [NOT!]
In-Reply-To: <199404040108.SAA02235@well.sf.ca.us>
Message-ID: <199404040313.UAA16069@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Stewart Brand writes:
> The Zimmerman prank---I'm sure not funny for him---hardens my line
> further against anonymity online.  At its best, as here, it is an
> unholy nuisance.

> Thanks for posting the correction, John.  I'm moderating a panel
> with Zimmerman later this week, and would have been confused.

I once read a story in the newspaper about a popular mayor who, it was
reported, died in a massage parlor.  I didn't realize that it was a
prank for some time.  I felt sheepish.  Should we monitor newspapers?
I don't think so.

Healthy skepticism of random messages on the net is a better way to
solve this problem.  Is this really Stewart Brand?

Peter





Thread