Thad's email address

[Craig Campbell]

In article <1991Feb5.223437.14710 at kodak.kodak.com> crassi at kodak.kodak.com (Charlie Crassi) writes:
>Let's face it Gil, the only thing that came out of ureka that you
>objected to was Dr. Shea's article on your computer prices, and whether
>or not you were scalping the "uninitiated". (I'm neutral, no opinion)
 
>Dr. Shea was doing what I understand was a psychological profile
>study of the personality types who try to become as someone who
>replied to his article put it so nicely, "Net.Gods", and their
>minions. 
 
>Personally I'd rather not spawn such a situation, but I believe when
>his research paper on the project was reviewed, it got a standing
>ovation thanks to those who replied, those you mention in your posting.
>I also believe his paper used direct quotations from the net replies.
>Watch for it in Psychology Today. The names will be changed but you
>should have no difficulty recognizing the article. :-)
 
>You can find Dr. Shea (alias mike shea) at:
>.....uunet!atexnet!kodak!brandy!ureka!orion!mikie
 
>or perhaps the "best" solution is sign up for one of the courses
>he teaches and discuss it with HIM ;-)

>charlie


Charlie, do you have details of this psychology experiment that was conducted
on us?

How about the article.  My subscription to "Psychology Today" seems to have
run out.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure how I feel about being used as part of an
experiment without my knowledge or consent, or how I feel about someone
furthering his career as a result of said experiment.

While I did suspect that Mike Shea was a net.fake, I did not suspect the 
net.experiment.for.career.gains angle (feeling stupid :-)).

If others are interested, you can post the response, else if I'm the only one
interested, e-mail me.

Thanks,

craig

P.S.  Can you include an e-mail address without and @ in it?  They have proven
     unreasonably difficult to use with outgoing mail (don't ask...MIS's setup)

C.E.C.