kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) (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) Let's face it, Charlie, the articles posted were pretty inflamatory and childish in tone. I normally stop reading groups that have such articles in them. But this group is important to maintaining my systems. (no, I DON'T like this kind of comment.) > > 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. :-) I suppose when Dr. Shea wants to study people's reactions to death, he will go out and shoot somebody. If this was indeed an experiment, Dr. Shea caused it to be flawed by suddenly appearing as a unknown, unreasonable member of the net who did not understand or abide by the mores of this group, and also did not respond either directly or indirectly to other methods that the net communicates, as by e-mail. I don't think it's normal to INTENTIONALLY act in such an inflammatory way, and Dr. Shea's postings seemed, based on their continued tone, to be deliberate. I don't think it is NORMAL for somebody to stir up trouble in a technical group as if they did not have a stake in its continued productive existence. I would think all Dr. Shea would have had to do is to record all net traffic for a period of a couple of months, and he could have plenty of records of accurate, geunine responses using this network. But he didn't do that. I think that Dr. Shea would need to have had a REAL interaction with the people involved. I would have expected Dr. Shea to have spent some time communicating with the people involved, other than through posting these messages and seeing what happens. Otherwise, how could he draw any conclusions about motivations? How could he draw any conclusions on how the netchanges the interactions of the people involved, if he doesn't find out how those people interact otherwise? This is all in advance of seeing any of Dr. Shea's conclusions. But I know that Dr. Shea did not post anything afterward summarizing what he thought was going on. It seems to me that Dr. Shea has skipped steps necessary to making any meaningful conclusions. Kris A. Kugel ( 908 ) 842-2707 uunet!tsdiag.ccur.com!hico2!kak {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak internet: kak@hico2.westmark.com Crazy Saddam, his prices are HUS-SEIN!!!!