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

[Bud Hovell @ Mtek]

In article <1991Feb6.175014.3949 at limbic.ssdl.com> gil at limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes:
<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...

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 at mtek.com
"No comment." - Jane Fonda's official position on the Gulf War.(per CNN)