Dr. [Mike] Shea's net experiment [was: Re: Re:Thad's email address]

Gil Kloepfer Jr. gil at limbic.ssdl.com
Thu Feb 7 04:50:14 AEST 1991

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)

I was BY FAR not the only one who objected...

>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

First off, let me ask that someone archiving the article Mike (dare
I call him "Dr. Shea") posted to the net regarding his psychological
profile explanation please e-mail it to me.  I would be
amused...er...flattered to see it.

Secondly, although I'm all for science (after all, I am a "computer
scientist") and the idea of an unbiased experiment, I also agree
that, following the conclusion of an experiment, an explanation
and apology should be submitted.  Mike didn't do this.  In fact,
the last article he posted said, in summary, that he was firm in
his beliefs, and that he was not going to change his mind.  I'm
generally not one to miss an article (especially from HIM), but
if I or any of my collegues missed it, I would be happy to entertain
a repost of his experimental findings.

Finally, if this had been an experiment, which I really doubt it
was, then Mike is leaving himself open to a hearty lawsuit.  The
comments he made were both false and demeaning.  Although unsuccessful,
his "experiment" was directed at placing enough doubt about my
integrity in people's minds as to prevent the re-sale of my
UNIX-pc equipment, perhaps putting my career in jeopardy.  Agreeing
or disagreeing with the idea of selling used equipment, kits, or
the like through the net is irrelevant.  Both civil law and the
overall attitude on the net dictate that slander is not a means
of making your point known to others.

>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.

Was that a standing ovation or a firing squad? :-)

If, indeed, Mike did present a research paper of the calibre you
present, then my congratulations to him on a job well-done.  However,
I (and many others who I could quote e-mail from) do not feel that
Mike's ethics are at all in-line with his psychological experience.

>Make it by hard work and education, the American Dream !

I and others on the net do so.  That's how and why many of us
work with computers and why this newsgroup exists in the first

followups directed to poster.  If replies must be directed to the
net, make them to sci.psychology where they belong.
Gil Kloepfer, Jr.              gil at limbic.ssdl.com   ...!ames!limbic!gil 
Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS)   Houston, Texas
"There are beautiful people I wish would have never opened their mouths,
because such ugliness oozes out."  Philosophy Prof. at NYIT

More information about the Comp.sys.3b1 mailing list