thad@btr.btr.com (02/05/91)
charlie@ureka.UUCP (charlie crassi) in <171@ureka.UUCP> writes:
I emailed this and it bounced back in 2 days. Seems the return path
from Thad's posting is a bummer ...........
For the record, I posted (earlier) BTR's UUCP map entry. If you're having
email bounce problems, check YOUR mail stuff. The fact I just received email
from Jim Sanchez in Brussels (yep, across the pond) clearly indicates there's
NO problem with my "new" address (see enclosed header from Jim (below)).
Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
-------------------- enclosed header for reference
From fernwood!relay.EU.net!syteke!jim Mon Feb 4 05:07:52 1991
Return-Path: <fernwood!relay.EU.net!syteke!jim>
Received: from btr.com by public.BTR.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0.btr.1)
id AA04884; Mon, 4 Feb 91 05:07:49 PST
Received: from fernwood.UUCP by btr.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA12504; Mon, 4 Feb 91 05:06:52 PST
Received: by fernwood.mpk.ca.us; id AA15675; Mon, 4 Feb 91 01:07:13 -0800
Received: by mcsun.EU.net via EUnet;
id AA09374 (5.65a/CWI-2.71); Mon, 4 Feb 91 10:06:31 +0100
Received: by ub4b (5.64+/ub4b_01)
id AA06115; Mon, 4 Feb 91 09:50:55 +0100
Received: by syteke.be (smail2.5/bdb)
id AA17840; Mon, 4 Feb 91 09:27:52 TZO (+0100)
Header: Hughes LAN Systems Office - Brussels
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.0 10/31/90)
To: thad@BTR.COM
Subject: No response to original - Resending
Message-Id: <9102040927.AA17836@syteke.be>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 09:27:50 TZO (+0100)
From: Jim Sanchez <jim@syteke.be>gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (02/06/91)
charlie@ureka.UUCP (charlie crassi) in <171@ureka.UUCP> writes: >I emailed this and it bounced back in 2 days. Seems the return path >from Thad's posting is a bummer ........... You might want to check your adjacent sites. It seems that not too long ago, some pretty objectionable stuff was coming out of ureka, and perhaps it's being blocked somewhere along the way. If anyone *is* doing this, it's probably about time to put the grudges aside and let mail start spewing from ureka again. I, personally, don't block mail, but I saw some threats of it on the net, and although I don't condone the practice, there are those who thought it was the "best" solution. In either case, if the path for Thad is working for some and not others, and it's not due to the blocking of mail, then it's time to do a new pathalias run. -- Gil Kloepfer, Jr. gil@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
crassi@kodak.kodak.com (Charlie Crassi) (02/06/91)
In his article: gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) Southwest Systems Development Labs, Houston, TX Gil Kloepfer Jr. posts the following; >You might want to check your adjacent sites. It seems that not too >long ago, some pretty objectionable stuff was coming out of ureka, >and perhaps it's being blocked somewhere along the way. > >If anyone *is* doing this, it's probably about time to put the >grudges aside and let mail start spewing from ureka again. I, >personally, don't block mail, but I saw some threats of it on the >net, and although I don't condone the practice, there are those >who thought it was the "best" solution. 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 ;-) -- Make it by hard work and education, the American Dream ! -- charlie ------------------ | Dare to be Great | ------------------
gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (02/07/91)
In article <1991Feb5.223437.14710@kodak.kodak.com> crassi@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 >minions. 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 place. followups directed to poster. If replies must be directed to the net, make them to sci.psychology where they belong. -- Gil Kloepfer, Jr. gil@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
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (02/07/91)
In article <1991Feb6.175014.3949@limbic.ssdl.com> gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes: >In article <1991Feb5.223437.14710@kodak.kodak.com> crassi@kodak.kodak.com (Charlie Crassi) writes: >>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. > [...] >Finally, if this had been an experiment, which I really doubt it > [...] >>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. > [...] >If, indeed, Mike did present a research paper of the calibre you >present, then my congratulations to him on a job well-done. However, > [...] >followups directed to poster. If replies must be directed to the >net, make them to sci.psychology where they belong. I know, I know... I posted a reply... :-) I only want to make one comment. I have been a "full time" user, poster, and reader of Usenet since the days when 1200 baud transfers were the norm, 2400 baud was a luxury, and average daily newsfeeds were noticeably under 1/4 MB.... I remember the hub bub that occurred sometime later when AT&T announced that Unix System III was now out of production and introduced Unix System V. If you get the idea I've been around a while, even though not as long as some of definate reknown, you are correct. In those many years, I have seen _many_ "psychological research activities" take place on Usenet. Nearly all have the stated objective of observing faceless reactions to a hostile environment created by the researcher. I have never _once_ found such a "research" to have ever occurred. Even those who publicly claimed during the "Events" that they were doing so, never could come up with a conclusion or WHY they were doing this "research." All research must have a stated goal and objective. If you don't know what you hope to accomplish, all you will get is a pile of useless numbers. There never were control groups, abstracts, or planned uses of the data. In the end, nearly every one of those "research projects" fell into one of two categories: 1) Someone decided patently to infuriate a lot of people for the sheer amusement of doing it. There were a few accepted terms for that, but I won't indicate them here... :-) 2) Someone thought about their assininity, and realized that if they professed that it was "all an experiment," they could probably "get off the hook" and clear their name without having to lose face by apologizing. #2 was by far the most common in those days. #1 seems to be a lot more common today. Never once have I found any evidence of any research ever having taken place. If Mr. Shea did indeed produce a paper, I would greatly appreciate seeing it. I would like to see evidence that such an activity took place (yes, I'm VERY skeptical), and I would also like to see the basis for the "research" and what it will hope to accomplish. Based on the articles which I had archived and gone through, I would say that the execution of this "research" was extremely poor. I'd be interested in seeing a writeup which explained the proposed approach and justified its manner. If it indeed was a scientifically valid paper, I would then be quite interested in the results. Psychological profiles are a mild interest of mine, and I'm sure this would be of extreme interest to a few personal and business acquaintances who do a large amount of psychological research and profiling (yes, I used to work for a company that did analysis along these lines. They'd love to see it, since it's a type of research they'll never get into.) If the "research" took place, I place a request for a distribution of the journal article and results. I also request a bibliography of the journals where it was published, or which journals are still pending. Documentation of where the paper was presented (and which proceedings it would have, or will, appear in) would be appreciated as well. Otherwise, the whole issue is closed yet once again, as it was before with no changes, since I don't believe such a paper exists. Call it a bet placed on the odds that have been set forth for the past decade. In other words, prove it to me. (Followups to me. I wouldn't want to miss a copy of this paper!) There. 'nuf said. -- Robert J. Granvin \\\\\\\\ rjg@sialis.com : INTERNET University of Minnesota \\\ ...uunet!rosevax!sialis!rjg : UUCP School of Statistics \\\\\\\ rjg%sialis.com@uunet.uu.net : BITNET Cleared by Network Censors
craig@attcan.UUCP (Craig Campbell) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb5.223437.14710@kodak.kodak.com> crassi@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.
bbh@mtek.com (Bud Hovell @ Mtek) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb6.175014.3949@limbic.ssdl.com> gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes: <In article <1991Feb5.223437.14710@kodak.kodak.com> crassi@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... Many of us found Shea's postings objectionable. This attempted apologia is no less so. <>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. Oh, for crissake! I must say that this sounds like pure, unadulterated bullshit. If it is not, then more revealing might be a 'psychological profile' of those personality types who perform such psychological profiles, those who publish the product of their activities, and those who cheer at the sidelines. If this purported "study" were supported under government funding, I would be very interested to hear about it, since there are (rightly) certain ethical restrictions about what such funding may be used to support, and under what conditions. It would be most troubling to discover that Mike Shea were suckling off the public teat as sustenance while he went about arbitrarily sowing slander on persons who were largely (and blissfully) unaware of his deservedly microscopic academic career, which he may confuse for scientific stature. As opposed to mere social notoriety. Regarding "minions"....it would certainly appear they occupy more than one camp. ____________ bud@mtek.com "No comment." - Jane Fonda's official position on the Gulf War.(per CNN)
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) (02/10/91)
>In article <1991Feb5.223437.14710@kodak.kodak.com> crassi@kodak.kodak.com (Charlie Crassi) writes: >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. "Dr"? Where was the approval from a human experimentation review committee? Where was the informed consent? Where was the analysis of statistical validity? Where was the analysis of experimental worth? Actively experimenting (as opposed to passively monitoring) without prior informed consent from the profilee and a review committee is professionally unethical *and* highly illegal. The man should have his license suspended or even revoked permanently, and perhaps should even face some criminal charges. Further, impugning someone's reputation and possibly affecting his future livelihood for an unconsented-to psychological experiment is totally irresponsible and reprehensible - he should have his pants sued off. "Deprival of livelihood" attempts are viewed very dimly by the courts, and the settlements are often quite large (100's of K and *up*). Explanations and apologies afterwards are inadequate (not that "Dr." Shea has made any), and would hardly addresses the fact that he violated the ethics of his own profession. >Make it by hard work and education, the American Dream ! "Net.Gods" make it through hard work and service to the net over many years. The fact that "Dr." Shea "made it" through lies, deceit and betrayal of what he had sworn to uphold doesn't fill me with any great admiration for psychologists (or "The American Dream" for that matter). -- Chris Lewis, Phone: (613) 832-0541, Internet: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca UUCP: uunet!mitel!cunews!latour!ecicrl!clewis; Ferret Mailing List: (ferret-request@eci386); Psroff (not Adobe Transcript) enquiries: psroff-request@eci386, current patchlevel is *7*.